***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking setting aside of the order dated 1.2.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kharar; whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint has been dismissed; and order dated 17.7.2024 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kharar, whereby second application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed being not maintainable.

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -

14.08.2018: Petitioners had filed Civil Suit (Annexure P-5) on 14.08.2018 for declaration et cetera.

29.01.2020: On 29.1.2020, Petitioners filed instant application (Annexure P-3) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint.

Nil: The respondents/defendants filed reply dated nil (Annexure P-6) to the aforesaid application of the petitioner.

01.02.2023: Vide first impugned order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), the said application dated 29.01.2020 filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.

10.03.2023: Petitioners then filed second application dated 10.03.2023 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-4), now seeking amendment of plaint that prayer for symbolic possession of the suit property be added.

17.07.2024: Vide second impugned order dated 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-2), the second application of the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed, being not maintainable.

3. Hence, present Revision Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that trial is at preliminary stage and issues are yet to be framed. As such, Trial Court could not have dismissed the applications of the petitioners in a summary manner.

5. It is further submitted that the order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) has been passed by the learned Trial Court without giving proper hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, as the above said order had been passed without hearing the petitioners, as such, petitioner was constrained to file another application for amendment seeking symbolic possession. It is contended that both the applications were almost similar; and could therefore, not have been dismissed by learned Trial Court as being not maintainable. Moreover, by way of the said applications, petitioners only want to add alternative relief. In fact, the plot at the spot is a vacant plot. So, actual physical possession is very difficult to ascertain. Accordingly, although suit has been filed for declaration as owners in possession, however given the above facts, alternative relief of possession has to be added. Even though plaintiffs are still claiming that they are still in possession. Thus, first application for amendment was filed. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2023. As such, petitioners had moved second application seeking amendment to the effect that plaintiffs may be given symbolic possession.

6. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders and another 2023(1) RCR Civil 851; has held that liberal view ought to be taken when amendment is sought prior to commencement of trial. However, learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate this legal principle. Moreover, learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that first application was dismissed without hearing the petitioners. Second application has been dismissed only due to reason that the first application is already dismissed. So basically on merits, applications have not been decided properly. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be allowed; and the impugned orders be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents vehemently oppose submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submit that impugned orders suffer from no error. The first application ha