IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.05.2026 Jaswant Singh and another …Petitioners V/s Iqbal Singh alias Bali and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 03.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Samalkha, District Panipat, vide which the application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”)

seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit (Annexure P-2) for declaration was instituted by the petitioners/plaintiffs with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and proforma-defendant No.3 are owners in possession in equal shares i.e. 1/4th share each of the house bearing Property ID No. 143819427/9/46 (Old No.9/99), constructed over the land measuring 193 Sq. Yards marked by letters ABCD and bounded as In the East House of Ramdiya, In the West-Balmiki Mandir, In the North Road, In the South: House of Smt. Bhimo Devi wife of Krishan and Balmiki Mandir, situated within the area of Kuhar Panna of Village Samalkha, which falls within the Municipal limit of Municipal Committee, Samalkha, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat AND FOR FURTHER DECLARATION to the effect that the sale-deed bearing Vasika No.1015 dated 26.06.2014 allegedly executed by Devi Singh son of Chet Ram (real brother of the plaintiffs and proforma-defendant No.3) in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the house in question is illegal, null, void, ab-initio, without sale consideration and has been procured by way of fraud and misrepresentation, not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and proforma-defendant No.3 and the same is liable to be set aside, WITH A CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and proforma-defendant No.3 over the house in dispute and also restraining the defendant No.1 from further alienating, transferring, mortgaging or creating charge over the suit property in any manner, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Costs of the suit be also awarded to the plaintiffs.”

3. The suit was opposed by defendant No.1 by way of a written statement (Annexure P-3).

4. Concededly, both sides have concluded their evidence and the matter was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. At the said stage, an application (Annexure P-5) was moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. It was averred that during the pendency of the instant suit, defendant No.1 (Iqbal Singh alias Bali) had instituted another suit i.e. Civil Suit No.261 of 2023 against the Human Welfare Credit and Thrift Cooperative Society Ltd. seeking a declaration as regards his rights qua the amount deposited by Devi Singh in the shape of an FDR in the abovesaid society on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 04.04.2018 alleged to have been executed by Devi Singh in favour of defendant No.1 as regards his moveable and immoveable properties. It was averred that in the said suit, the petitioners-plaintiffs and the proforma defendants had not been made parties. It was averred that in the instant suit, no reference of the Will had been given in the written statement. It was also averred that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC had been moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the said suit seeking their impleadment as defendants which was pending adjudication.

5. It was averred that in case the second suit was withdrawn, the Will would remain in existence and could be misused in future. The petitioners/plaintiffs, therefore