IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

125 CR-8454-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 09.12.2025 Leena Dutta ..... Petitioner Versus Maninderjit Singh Sikka and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA PRESENT: Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Prayer in the present revision petition filed by the plaintiff is for setting aside the order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar in Civil Suit No. CS/1356/2019, whereby the application dated 23.07.2025 (AnnexureP-2) filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of plaint, has been dismissed.

2. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court was in patent error in dismissing the application for amendment of plaint filed by the petitioner as, it failed to appreciate that the petitioner had sought to make very minor amendments in the plaint which would not have cause any prejudice to the respondent- defendants. It is submitted that the proposed amendments are very much essential for the proper adjudication of the matter. Thus, the learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the application of the petitioner.

Accordingly, it is prayed that the present revision petition be allowed, and the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) may be set aside.

3. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and carefully gone through the case file. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

4. The undisputed facts of the present case are that the present Civil Suit was filed by the petitioner on dated 31.05.2019 seeking declaration to the effect that act of the defendant terminating the services of the plaintiff is without any basis or authority. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that issues in the said suit were framed by the learned trial Court on 09.07.2025; whereafter the present application (Annexure P-2) was filed on dated 23.07.2025.

5. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads as follows: -

“17. Amendment of pleadings. -The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

6. A bare reading of the above provision shows that amendment shall not be allowed after trial has commenced. In the present case, admittedly trial commenced on 9.7.2025, on which date issues were framed; whereas instant application for amendment was filed on

23.7.2025. Thus, prima facie, no application for amendment can be entertained.

7. No doubt, amendment is to be permitted in justiciable terms for the determination of the real controversy at hand. However, the said provision cannot be read in isolation of the proviso thereto, which further categorically stipulates “...no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced……”A perusal of the application dated 23.7.2025 shows that proposed amendments are sought on the ground that ‘some typographical and other mistakes have occurred inadvertently in the contents of plaint which would not be observed by the plaintiff at the time of filing the plaint which require amendment as per the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC’. Clearly, therefore, the plaintiff is seeking amendment only due to ‘inadvertent’ errors that have occurred. The said alleged mistakes were in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of plaint. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the petitioner has execrably