##PAGE1##

CR-2397-2023 (O&M)

134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-2397-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision : 19.05.2026

Smt. Kanta Devi (since deceased) thr. Her LRs ...... Petitioner

Versus

Gurbachan Singh (since deceased) thr. His LRs & ors. ..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

***

Present :- Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate and

Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate

for the respondent.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 Present revision petition is directed against the order dated

30.01.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dasuya whereby application

filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint by the

plaintiffs-respondents has been allowed subject to payment of cost of

Rs.2000/-. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their

original position in the suit, i.e. the petitioner as defendant and the respondents

as plaintiffs.

2 Plaintiffs filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that

the plaintiffs are owners in possession of land measuring 4 kanals 11 marlas,

as detailed out in the head note of the plaint and that agreement to sell dated

24.03.2009 propounded by defendant and the consequential ex-parte

POOJA SHARMA Page 1 of 6

2026.05.25 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-2397-2023 (O&M)

judgment and decree based thereupon dated 23.03.2012 passed by Additional

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya in a suit for Specific Performance

bearing Civil Suit No.347 of 30.09.2009 titled as “Smt. Kanta Devi Vs.

Gurcharan Singh & others’ is illegal and bad in law with the consequential

relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the

possession of the plaintiffs.

3 Defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

seeking rejection of the plaint for want of affixation of ad valorem court fee

claiming that the sale deed having been executed in favour of the defendant,

plaintiffs are required to affix ad valorem court fee in terms of Section 7(v)(c)

of the Court Fees Act, 1870. In the said application, the plaintiffs pleaded

that, they being in possession are not required to pay ad valorem court fee.

4 Later on, an application was moved by the defendant under Order

XIV Rule 5 CPC claiming issue qua possession. Thereafter plaintiffs filed

present application seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate the

following amendments in the suit :-

“10-A. That, the plaintiffs came to know during the proceedings

of the instant (suit that the symbolic possession of the suit

property was delivered to the defendants in the execution

proceedings when the defendant has filed an application u/o 14

Rule 5 CPC, in which the defendants are alleging their

possession over the suit property, hence the plaintiffs are

claiming the relief of possession, in order to avoid any further

legal complications to adjudicate the matter in suit judiciously.

15-A: That, the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee for

the subsequent relief of Possession, comes to Rs. 60/- being 30%

POOJA SHARMA Page 2 of 6

2026.05.25 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-2397-2023 (O&M)

+ 10% of the Land Revenue Assessed on the suit property and as

such the Court Fee Stamp of Rs. 60/ is being affixed on the

Amended Plaint.”

5 The application was resisted by the defendant claiming that once

the trial has already commenced and the plaintiffs claim to be in physical

possession, they cannot be allowed to resile from their earlier stand and thus

the amendment cannot be allowed. Trial court allowed the application vide

impugned order holding that even by way of proposed amendment, the

plaintiffs are not seeking delivery of actual physical possession but are

claiming that in execution of the ex-parte decree, the defendant were only put

in symbolic possession. Trial Court accordingly held that for final resolution

of the dispute between the parties the proposed amendment being necessary,

it needs to be