IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (114)

Date of Pronouncement:-13.11.2025 Rekha Sharma … Petitioner Versus Kamlesh Pradhan and others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .(ORAL)

CM-22549-CII-2025

1. In view of the grounds set forth in the application, the same is hereby allowed. The copy of the plaint is directed to be taken on record as Annexure A-1. The requirement of filing its certified copy is dispensed with, subject to all just and equitable exceptions.

1.1. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of in the above terms.

M ain Civil Revision

2. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality, propriety, and correctness of the order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P-3), rendered by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application seeking amendment of the plaint, thereby declining to permit incorporation of the proposed pleadings which, according to the petitioner, were essential for the just and effective adjudication of the matter.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner–plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration with consequential reliefs of possession and permanent injunction in the year 2016, asserting ownership over a plot measuring 250 square yards on the strength of a General Power of Attorney, affidavit, and agreement to sell. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint.

3.1. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had earlier filed a suit in the year 2008 against the respondent–defendant seeking possession of the same property; however, the said suit was dismissed as non-maintainable on the ground that the petitioner had failed to seek the requisite relief of declaration of title. In order to cure this defect and to bring on record facts essential for proper adjudication of the dispute, the petitioner, by way of the present amendment application, sought to incorporate an additional relief of declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 11.06.1990 executed in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Pradhan was void and inoperative, as the same was allegedly executed by Roshan Lal and others subsequent to the execution of an earlier sale deed dated 26.03.1990 in favour of Shri Jatinder Kumar Bansal, proforma respondent No. 3. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the subsequent sale deed dated 11.06.1990 be declared null and void qua his rights.

4. Upon consideration of the application and the submissions advanced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge declined to accede to the petitioner’s request and consequently dismissed the application.

5. The impugned order is assailed on the grounds that the learned Civil Judge failed to apply the established legal principle that amendments to pleadings ought to be permitted with a liberal and beneficial approach so as to subserve the ends of justice. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court overlooked that an amendment which is necessary for the effective and complete determination of the lis particularly one intended to cure the procedural infelicity which rendered the petitioner’s earlier suit non-maintainable ought to have been allowed unless it would occasion undue prejudice to the opposite party or cause the trial to be defeated on wholly untenable grounds. The petitioner avers that the proposed amendment did not raise a new cause of action but only sought declaratory relief essential for adjudicating the core controversy between the parties, and that the learned Civil Judge misdirected himself in declining the same.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, examined the record and the paper-book with minute care, and consi