IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7570-2025 DECIDED ON: 27.10.2025 INDER SAIN (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS .....PETITIONERS VERSUS RAM BHAGWAN AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate and Mr. Saksham Dudeja, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned composite order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby two applications filed by respondent No. 1–plaintiff, one under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and another under Order I Rule 10 CPC, were allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff–respondent No. 1 filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition and for permanent injunction, claiming himself to be a co-sharer along with the defendants, including the present petitioners, in the joint ancestral property inherited from a common ancestor. The petitioners, who were impleaded as defendants no. 3 to 6, filed their written statement raising several preliminary objections, inter alia, that the suit was for partial partition since certain joint ancestral properties, including those sold by the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 2, were not included; that the suit was barred by limitation and by the principle of ouster; that all co-sharers and co-owners were not impleaded as necessary parties; that the suit was undervalued and proper court fee had not been affixed; and that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

3. The issues were framed and the trial commenced. The plaintiff concluded his evidence on 05.12.2024 after availing several opportunities. The defendants also examined four witnesses in support of their defence, and the matter was fixed for final arguments. At that stage, on 04.09.2025, the plaintiff moved two applications i.e. one under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint, and another under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading an omitted necessary party.

4. In the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff sought to incorporate certain amendments in the plaint which, according to him, were left out inadvertently. These included the addition of Khasra No. 103 as part of the suit property, correction of typographical errors where Khasra No. 94 had been typed as 894 and Khasra No. 174 as 74, correction in the name and parentage of respondents no. 7 and 8, addition of the name of one Malkit Kaur, wife of Parkash, who had been inadvertently omitted in the memo of party, and impleadment of one deceased co-sharer, Mohna alias Mohan Lal, through his legal representatives as respondent no. 27. The accompanying application under Order I Rule 10 CPC sought impleadment of said Mohna alias Mohan Lal through his legal heirs, who were necessary parties to the suit for partition.

5. The defendants (petitioners herein) filed a detailed reply opposing both the applications. It was contended that the trial had already concluded, the matter was fixed for final arguments, and therefore, the applications were barred under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as the plaintiff had not exercised due diligence in seeking the amendment earlier. It was further submitted that the proposed amendments would change the nature of the suit and amount to an abuse of process of law, as the plaintiff was seeking to fill lacunae after conclusion of evidence. As regards the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, it was argued that a deceased person could not be impleaded as a party and that the plaintiff had remained grossly negligent despite having knowledge of the non-joinder since the inception of the suit and even after the objections were raised in the written statement.

6. After hearing both sides, the learned trial court, vide its composite order dated 25.09.2025, allowed both applications. The trial co