IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7863-2025 DECIDED ON: 04.11.2025 BAL KISHAN CHAUHAN .....PETITIONER VERSUS SHEELA DEVI AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner–defendant, challenging the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the respondent–plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance and possession on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 19.10.2015, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner-defendant in favour of her husband, ₹

late Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, for a total sale consideration of 1 crore.

3. The defendant filed his written statement admitting the ₹

execution of the said agreement and receipt of 30 lakhs as earnest money but pleaded that the balance sale consideration was never paid, and therefore, the agreement automatically stood cancelled. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff’s husband failed to perform his part of the contract, and after his death, the plaintiffs also did not make payment of the balance amount, leading to the forfeiture of the earnest money and cancellation of the related documents such as the Will and GPA executed in their favour.

4. Subsequently, the defendant moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. In the proposed amendment, the defendant sought to introduce facts that he and the plaintiff’s husband were acquainted for long and were involved in joint property dealings; that in 2015, the defendant wanted to purchase a property for trading purposes and sought funds from late Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma; that ₹

the amount of 1 crore was in the nature of a loan or advance, repayable after resale of another property; and that the agreement to sell dated 19.10.2015 was executed only as a security for that loan and not with an actual intent to transfer ownership of the land.

5. The plaintiff opposed the amendment contending that it had been filed at a highly belated stage, after completion of plaintiff’s evidence, only to delay the proceedings. It was further argued that the defendant, ₹

having earlier admitted execution of the agreement and receipt of 30 lakhs as earnest money, cannot now be permitted to change the nature of the transaction by converting it into a loan arrangement.

6. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application vide the impugned order dated 03.10.2025, holding that the proposed amendment amounts to a complete change in the nature of the defence and withdrawal of admissions already made. It was further held that the plea of due diligence is not established as the facts now sought to be introduced were always within the defendant’s knowledge.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-defendant has preferred the present revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment does not introduce a new defence but merely seeks to explain the earlier admission regarding ₹

receipt of 30 lakhs and to bring the full background of the transaction on record. It is submitted that the amendment is bona fide, necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, and would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. It is further urged that the petitioner does not intend to lead any additional evidence on the amendment and that the trial Court wrongly dismissed the application merely on technical grounds.

9. The matter being limited in scope and involving a short question of law, no notice was considered necessary to be issued to the resp