IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-8041-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 05.12.2025 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Vishwjeet Singh ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra in Civil Suit No. 1396 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the said order primarily on the ground that the amendment permitted by the trial Court results in introducing an entirely new case and materially alters the nature of the suit.

2. The case of the petitioner, as argued, is that the plaintiff-respondent had already executed a registered sale deed dated 27.03.2023 in his favour for a total consideration of ₹84,72,000, out of which the petitioner had already paid ₹79,72,000 through cheques at the time of execution of the sale deed, and the remaining amount of ₹5 lakh was duly paid in cash, which fact is stated to be supported by affidavits and other documents. It is further the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff had suppressed these material facts at the time of filing the suit and has now, by moving the application for amendment, attempted to set up a completely new case by relying upon an agreement to sell dated 12.03.2023, which was never referred to in the registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, the amendment is mala fide and is intended only to raise a new story with the object of extracting additional money from the petitioner. It is submitted that the trial Court ignored the material on record, including the sale deed, the alleged agreement, the cheques and affidavits, and proceeded to allow the amendment contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of amendments. The petitioner contends that the order suffers from patent illegality and liable to be set aside.

3. The trial Court, while allowing the application, considered the nature of the amendment sought and held that it was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. It further observed that the suit is at an initial stage and the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit. The court also noted that merits of the claim are not to be examined at the stage of deciding an amendment application, and allowed the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated before this Court that the amendment permitted by the trial Court amounts to allowing the respondent to introduce an entirely fresh cause of action which did not find mention in the original plaint. It is argued that such an amendment is impermissible in law, that the facts sought to be introduced are afterthoughts, and that permitting the respondent to amend the plaint would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, who has already paid the entire sale consideration. The petitioner contends that the trial Court misdirected itself by failing to appreciate the documentary evidence placed on record and by exercising its discretion irregularly.

5. Since the question involved relates only to the correctness of an interlocutory order passed in the course of trial, and the matter turns solely on the applicability of the principles governing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, no notice was considered necessary to be issued to the respondent, particularly because the matter is short and relates to the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the trial Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. The