IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.12.2025 Amanpreet Kaur … Petitioner Versus Gurdeep Kaur and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sourabh Singla, Advocate, and Mr. Karan Monga, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Karan Puggal, Advocate, and Mr. Raghav Puggal, Advocate, for the respondent-caveator.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-11), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patti, vide which the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for amendment of plaint was dismissed.

2. A suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to the effect that she is joint owner and in possession of 1/3rd share of the suit land (fully described in the plaint), situated at Village Kirtowal, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought.

3. The suit was opposed by the defendants by way of a written statement (Annexure P-2).

4. An application (Annexure P-9) was moved under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint, vide which the petitioner/plaintiff, apart from some other amendments, sought to add an averment that the alienation of the suit land was without legal necessity. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-10), in which it was averred that the application was highly belated, as the suit was fixed for final arguments, and further that the proposed amendments were not essential for the just decision of the case. It was also averred that on two earlier occasions, applications for amendment had been filed, which were allowed, but even at that time, such amendments were not sought.

5. By way of impugned order dated 01.09.2025, the applciation was dismissed, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the amendments sought to be made are formal in nature and are essential for the proper adjudication of the case, but the trial Court did not consider the matter from the correct perspective and erroneously rejected the application. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel representing the petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit. Concededly, the suit in question was instituted on 26.08.2014. Issues were framed on 02.03.2022. An application for amendment of the plaint was initially moved by the petitioner/plaintiff, which was allowed vide order dated 21.05.2022. Thereafter, another application for amendment was filed in October 2022, which was again allowed vide order dated 14.11.2022. Subsequently, 13 effective opportunities were availed by the petitioner/plaintiff to conclude her evidence, which was eventually closed on 24.07.2023. Thereafter, the defendants concluded their evidence, and the case is now fixed for final arguments. At this stage, an application for amendment was moved seeking to incorporate the following amendments:-

“2. That the applicant wants to amend the headnote of the plaint after the word "without consideration" and wants to add "without any legal necessity and deceased Darbara Singh was not competent legally to execute any kind of registered the same as he was physically disabled".

3. That the applicant/plaintiff want to amend the body of the plaint and wants to add few lines in para no. 5 of the plaint after the word Property in question. "The entire land which was in the hands of Darbara Singh had been inherited by him from his father Lal Singh and Lal Singh inherited the same from his father Kushal Singh. In this way the entire land is coparcenary property and the plaintiff no. 1 being coparcener is having Legal right to get her share from the coparcenary property by birth.

4. That the