IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7282-2025 DECIDED ON: 29.10.2025 KARANDEEP SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS BALBIR SINGH AND ORS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sangrur, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff–respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed subject to payment of costs.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that the plaintiff–respondent instituted a suit for possession by way of partition to the extent of half share in a double-storey residential house constructed on land measuring 1 Bigha 17 Biswas out of total land measuring 6 Bighas 17 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 707/393 (2–19– 10), 902/394 (0–2), and 908/396 (3–2) situated in village Gehlan, Tehsil and District Sangrur. It was pleaded that the description of land was based upon the record of Jamabandi for the year 2014–15.

3. The defendants filed their written statement raising objections that all co-sharers of the property had not been impleaded as parties. The plaintiff-respondent subsequently moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which was allowed on 18.11.2021, and other co-sharers were impleaded as defendants. Issues were framed on 23.03.2023. The plaintiff examined PW1 and PW2, whose cross-examinations were completed, but thereafter despite several opportunities, the plaintiff failed to conclude the evidence. During the pendency of the evidence, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 30.07.2024 seeking amendment of the plaint on the basis of Jamabandi for 2019–20 and Fard Badar No.4 dated 11.04.2022 to incorporate the alleged corrections in Khasra numbers, areas of land and shares of the parties.

4. The defendants opposed the said application contending that the Fard Badar No.4 dated 11.04.2022 had been deliberately concealed by the plaintiff for over two years and that the same was discovered only during the examination of plaintiff’s witnesses. It was further alleged that the said Fard Badar was obtained in collusion with revenue authorities and a separate suit for declaration dated 19.09.2024 challenging its validity had already been filed by the defendants. The plaintiff thereafter withdrew the first amendment application dated 30.07.2024 and filed a second application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 12.11.2024 with the plea that there was a clerical mistake in the earlier one. The second application sought to substitute the Khasra numbers and areas as 908/396 (2–19), 707/393 (0–15), and 909/396/1 (0–13), total measuring 4 Bighas 7 Biswas.

5. The learned trial Court, without adverting to the objections raised by the defendants and without giving any reason as to why such belated amendment was necessary at this advanced stage of trial, allowed the application vide the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 subject to payment of ₹

costs of 3000/–.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is illegal and perverse as the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the amendment sought to be incorporated is based on a disputed Fard Badar which itself is under challenge in a separate declaratory suit. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the said document for more than two years, and the amendment, if allowed, would completely change the nature of the suit and amount to permitting the plaintiff to fill up lacunae in his case. The learned trial Court also ignored that the property in question already stood partitioned among all co-sharers prior to the filing of the suit, and the amendment would lead