IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:09.02.2026 Arvinder Kaur …..Pe11oner Vs.

Nirmal Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Pooja Rana, Advocate for Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner herein is one of the plain(cid:26)ffs in civil suit bearing No. CS-319-2021 (cid:26)tled “Amarjit Kaur and others versus Nirmal Singh and others”, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala. She has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby an applica(cid:26)on filed by the defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the wri9en statement was allowed, subject to payment of costs.

2. The suit has been ins(cid:26)tuted by the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner along with two other plain(cid:26)ffs seeking a decree of permanent injunc(cid:26)on restraining the defendants from interfering in their alleged possession over the suit land, which is claimed to be owned by the plain(cid:26)ffs. The defendants contested the suit by asser(cid:26)ng that their father, Jagir Singh, had purchased land measuring 10 Kanal from a co-sharer, Soma Devi, and that muta(cid:26)on No.2194 dated 17.10.2019 had been sanc(cid:26)oned in this regard. It was further pleaded that upon the death of Jagir Singh, muta(cid:26)on of inheritance was sanc(cid:26)oned in favour of the defendants on 17.10.2019. According to the defendants, these material facts could not be incorporated in the original wri9en statement inadvertently and, therefore, they sought permission to place the same on record by way of amendment.

3. The learned trial Court, while no(cid:26)cing that issues had already been framed, also recorded that the case was s(cid:26)ll at an ini(cid:26)al stage inasmuch as the evidence of the plain(cid:26)ffs was yet to commence. The trial Court further observed that the facts sought to be introduced by way of amendment were directly related to the (cid:26)tle and possession of the suit land and were, therefore, relevant and crucial for the effec(cid:26)ve adjudica(cid:26)on of the controversy. At the same (cid:26)me, the trial Court also took note of the negligence on the part of the defendants in not disclosing these facts at the first instance and, consequently, allowed the amendment subject to payment of costs of ₹2,500/-, to be deposited in DLSA.

4. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner has contended that once the trial had commenced, the amendment of pleadings could not have been permi9ed in view of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

5. The conten(cid:26)on does not merit acceptance. It is well se9led that though the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC places a restric(cid:26)on on allowing amendments a@er commencement of trial, the embargo is not absolute. The Court retains the discre(cid:26)on to permit amendment, if it is sa(cid:26)sfied that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the ma9er before the commencement of trial, and if such amendment is necessary for determining the real ques(cid:26)ons in controversy between the par(cid:26)es. The underlying object of the proviso is not to punish inadvertence or procedural lapses, but to ensure that jus(cid:26)ce is done on the basis of complete and correct pleadings.

6. In the present case, the trial Court has categorically recorded a finding that the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the suit, nor does it introduce a new or inconsistent defence. The amendment merely seeks to place on record facts rela(cid:26)ng to purchase of land and sanc(cid:26)on of muta(cid:26)ons, which go to the root of the dispute regarding (cid:26)tle and possession. Denial of such amendment would result in incomplete adjudica(cid:26)on and may give rise to mul(cid:26)plicity of proceedings. The trial Court has