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

CR-7444-2024(O&M)

Date of decision : 09.04.2026 Surdeep Singh @ Sardeep Singh ... Petitioner Versus Surjit Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.Prateek Sodhi, Advocate (through V.C.) and Ms.Yukta Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Harminder Singh, Advocate and Mr.Damanjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial Court vide which the application under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file additional affidavit of plaintiff witnesses has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner along with proforma respondent no.3 had filed a suit for declaration and after the suit was filed, the first amendment was allowed and in paragraph 2 of the said amended plaint, the plaintiff has made the following averments:-

“2. That, the plaintiffs were the exclusive owner of land bearing

Khasra No. 63//7/1/2/1 measuring 4 Kanals 12 Marlas which is situated at some distance of the land in joint khata of the plaintiff and the plaintiff were not having any source of irrigation etc. of that land and the said land was touching to the land of the defendants and they approached the plaintiff No. 1 for the sale of the said land bearing Khasra No. 63//7/1/2/1 in the year 1996 and the plaintiff No. 1 executed the sale deed of the said land on 19.12.1996 and the possession was also delivered of the Khasra No. 63//7/1/2/1, however after some time it has come to the notice of the parties that the Patwari due to mistake and over sightenss has given the jamabandi of the other land of the plaintiffs in place of Khasra No. 63//7/1/2/1 i.e. of Khasra No. 84//25/2, 89//5/1 and under that reason in the sale deed the wrong khasra numbers were mentioned and the understanding between the parties it was settled between the parties to cultivate the land bearing Khasra No. 84//25/2 and 89//5/1 by the plaintiffs as owners and the Khasra No. 63/7/1/2/1 of whose possession was given at the time of sale deed will be cultivated by the defendants as owner, however no formal writing was written between the parties just in good faith as it required big amount of expenses for the registration of the sale deeds by cancellation of the one sale deed and to execution of fresh sale deed and since that oral settlement in the end of May, 1997 the plaintiff and defendants are cultivating the above mentioned land as owners exclusively, peacefully, uninterruptedly and their title is and possession of respective khasra numbers is adverse to the whole of the world including each other and none of the parties ever objected to the same.”

3. It is submitted that a perusal of the same would show that there was specific averment to the effect that wrong khasra numbers have been mentioned in the sale deed on account of mistake and oversightedness. It is submitted that, thereafter, the plaintiffs had further moved subsequent application for amendment and wanted to add paragraph 3A to the effect that audio video recording is there of the conversation between the father of the defendants and the plaintiffs which would prove the version of the plaintiffs and the trial Court vide order dated 13.09.2024 had observed that the said audio video recording can be tendered by the plaintiffs during the course of their evidence or they can put the same to the witness examined by the defendants but the pleadings could not be amended on the basis of the said audio video recording. It is submitted that the said piece of evidence was in consonance with the earlier pleadings and since the specific averment regarding the audio video recording has not been made in the earlier affidavits filed by PW-1 and PW-2 which was on 01.03.2024 and 01.05.2024, thus, the petitioner