IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 Satish Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS Sukhwinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ,J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 26.11.2025(Annexure-P5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner(defendant No.1) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement has been dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1(plaintiff) instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.06.2019, seeking a direction to the petitioner(defendant No.1) for execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of a shop measuring 35 sq. yards, along with a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and other defendants and their agents from alienating, transferring, mortgaging, or otherwise disposing of the suit property. The petitioner/defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement as well as reply to the respondent's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, denying the allegations therein. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner(defendant No.1) moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement, which the learned trial Court dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(defendant No.1) contends that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC without appreciating that the proposed amendment was essential for determining the real issues in controversy and for enabling an effective adjudication of the matter. It is urged that the amendment neither alters the nature or character of the suit nor introduces any new cause of action, and was sought bonafidely upon discovery of material facts during preparation of rebuttal evidence. It is further submitted that rejection of the amendment would lead to multiplicity of proceedings, contrary to the principles of judicial economy; and that mere delay cannot by itself constitute a ground for refusal when no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. Lastly, the amendment was necessary for complete and final adjudication of the dispute; and that failure to allow the same has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner, causing irreparable loss unless the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 is set aside.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-

reasoned order passed by the learned Trial Court on 26.11.2025 dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The procedural history would show that the suit for possession by way of specific performance was instituted on 22.10.2021, the petitioner/defendants filed their written statement denying the agreement, and thereafter the matter proceeded through the stages of evidence. It is only on 19.11.2025, at the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments, that the petitioner moved the present application seeking amendment of the written statement, which was contested by the respondent through reply dated 24.11.2025. The statutory scheme under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC clearly mandates that no amendment shall be permitted after the settlement of issues unless the party seeking amendment is able to establish that despite exercise of due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. The application in the present case was filed at a highly belated stage after more than four years of pendency of the suit, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any circumstance