##PAGE1##

CR-1538-2021 (O&M)

1 of 7

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(cid:1)

153 CR-1538-2021 (O&M)

Date of decision: 18.05.2026

(cid:1)

Suba Singh ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Mandeep Kaur and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate(cid:1)

for the petitioner.(cid:1)

(cid:1)

Mr. A.S.Khinda, Advocate(cid:1)

for respondent No.1.(cid:1)

***(cid:1)

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff seeking setting aside

of the order dated 19.07.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division)-II, Kapurthala; whereby application filed by the

petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for seeking amendment of the

plaint, has been dismissed.(cid:1)

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -(cid:1)

13.07.2016: Petitioner had filed amended Suit dated 13.07.2016

(Annexure P-1) for declaration and permanent injunction. (cid:1)

20.01.2017: Respondent/defendant No.1 had filed written statement

dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure P-2). Defence of defendants No. 2 to 5 and 7

had been struck off. (cid:1)

DIVYANSHI

2026.05.20 15:32

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order

(cid:1)

CR-1538-2021 (O&M)

2 of 7

(cid:1)

21.04.2017: Plaintiff had filed application dated 21.04.2017 (Annexure P-

3) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.(cid:1)

07.03.2020: Defendant had filed reply dated 07.03.2020 (Annexure P-4)

to the said application.(cid:1)

19.07.2021: Vide impugned order dated 19.07.2021 (Annexure P-5),

application of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that trial

has not only commenced but is at its fag end and it was incumbent upon

the petitioner to show due diligence. It was further held that pleadings of

the petitioner/plaintiff are contrary to the arguments.(cid:1)

3. Hence, present Revision Petition.(cid:1)

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that a mere typographical error in the plaint of the civil suit filed by the

petitioner is being held against him. Inasmuch as, name 'Jhina' is required

to be replaced with 'Jiwan S/o Jamita' and similarly, instead of 'Shahkot',

the same is to be replaced with 'Syalkot'. Likewise, 'Naggar' is to be

replaced with 'Naggaur.' Yet, application seeking amendment of the said

error has been dis-allowed vide impugned order dated 19.07.2021.(cid:1)

5. It is submitted that all the aforesaid typographical errors are

duly supported by the revenue record, which has already been placed on

record. Notwithstanding, the application moved under Order 6, Rule 17

of the CPC for correction in the plaint has been rejected. Clearly,

therefore, the petitioner has sought innocuous amendment which could

not have been objected to by the respondent. Yet, the learned Trial Court

has dismissed amendment application of the petitioner in a mechanical

DIVYANSHI

2026.05.20 15:32

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order

(cid:1)

CR-1538-2021 (O&M)

3 of 7

(cid:1)

manner. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be

allowed; and the impugned order be set aside.(cid:1)

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/defendant

opposes submissions of the petitioner by submitting that application

under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved by the petitioner at a highly

belated stage when the suit was fixed for rebuttal arguments. Moreover,

case set up by the petitioner is contrary in-as-much as petitioner had

examined PW3, who had admitted the correct translation of the revenue

record; Whereas in his amendment application (Annexure P-3), petitioner

has sought amendment on the ground that the same is a typographical

error. It is further submitted that vide the application (Annexure P-3),

petitioner has only sought correction of the name of the great grandfather

of Sucha Singh and correction of District Syalkoat instead of Shahkot. It is

submitted that in the said application, there is no mention of correction

of village Naggar