##PAGE1##

CR-3553-2026 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 1 of 5

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

124

CR-3553-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.04.2026

Rajinder Kumar

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Tejwinder Singh

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Ashish Bakshi, Advocate

for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant seeking

setting aside of the order dated 12.01.2026 (Annexure P6) passed by learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala whereby application filed by the

plaintiff/respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint, has

been allowed.

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

the plaintiff had originally filed a Suit for permanent injunction on the basis of

Agreement to Sell dated 26.07.2023. The petitioner had even filed written

statement to the said Civil Suit. However, during the pendency of the Suit, the

respondent had moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for

amendment of plaint to add prayer in the head note to the effect “Suit for

SUNENA

2026.04.30 11:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)

CR-3553-2026 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 2 of 5

(cid:1)

possession by way of specific performance….”, in the already pending Suit for

injunction. Ld. counsel submits that the same amounts to change of nature of

the Suit. Moreover, while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court

has failed to consider that it is the clear case of the petitioner in the written

statement that no Agreement to Sell was executed between the petitioner and

the plaintiff as alleged by the respondent in his Suit. Even in the written

statement, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that the respondent is a

financier, and he has misused the documents i.e. blank signed papers of the

petitioner in forging the alleged Agreement to Sell. It is accordingly prayed that

the impugned order be set aside.

3. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner. I have

heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit

in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as under:-

19.10.2023: The respondent/plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.706 dated

19.10.2023 (Annexure P2) seeking a decree of permanent injunction

restraining the petitioner/defendant from alienating, selling,

mortgaging, etc. or creating any sort of charge in any manner

whatsoever upon the suit property on the basis of Agreement to Sell

dated 26.07.2023 executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the

respondent/plaintiff.

SUNENA

2026.04.30 11:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)

CR-3553-2026 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 3 of 5

(cid:1)

Nil: The petitioner had filed written statement dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P3)

to the said Civil Suit.

08.11.2024: On 08.11.2024, the respondent had moved instant

application (Annexure P4) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151

CPC for amendment of plaint. It was prayed that the respondent wants

to add prayer for possession by way of specific performance in respect

of the suit property on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated

26.07.2023; and in the alternative Suit for recovery of Rs.2,40,000/-.

07.02.2025: The petitioner had filed a reply dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure

P5) to the said application.

12.01.2026: Vide impugned order dated 12.01.2026 (Annexure P6), the

application of the respondent for amendment of the plaint has been

allowed.

5. On a direct Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has

admitted that issues in the case are yet to be framed by the learned trial Court.

Clearly therefore, the Suit is at preliminary stage and trial has not yet

commenced. The provision is very clear that all necessary amendments are

liable to be permitted prior to commencement of trial. Furthermore, the legal

position in this regard is also clear that a liberal view has to be taken while

permitting amendments.

6. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K.