IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.613 of 2018 Date of decision: April 23^rd, 2026 Brahmanand and another .....Petitioners Versus Sushil Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate (through V.C.)

and Ms. Chhavi Budhiraja, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Beniwal and Ms. Suman Beniwal, Advocates for respondent No.1.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT PETITION:

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad, vide which the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for amendment of plaint has been allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the allotment was made in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 on 06.03.2015 and respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed an application on 15.03.2016 before the Sub Registrar and District Collector, Fatehabad, requesting them not to allot and register the plot in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 and thereafter filed suit on 21.03.2016. It is submitted that respondent No.1 had knowledge of the allotment dated 06.03.2015 but did not challenge the same at the time of filing the suit and even subsequently when the order dated 09.02.2017 was passed dismissing the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and the application for amendment was filed only on 09.01.2018 after much delay, after the evidence of the plaintiff had been closed. It is submitted that the amendment application has been allowed in spite of the fact that there was no due diligence on the part of respondent No.1/plaintiff. It is argued that thus the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be set aside and the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for amendment deserves to be dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF:

3. Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff in the case, has submitted that in the present case, respondent No.1/plaintiff was not aware of the allotment in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 as the plaintiff was not a party to the said allotment and the said fact is apparent from the fact that even in the application dated 15.03.2016, the plaintiff had requested the competent authority not to allot or register the plot in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 and in case respondent No.1 was aware of the allotment, then, a prayer would have been made by respondent No.1 for cancellation of the said allotment. It is submitted that on the date of filing of the suit, respondent No.1 was not aware about the said allotment and it was only subsequently that he learnt about the same and accordingly moved an application for amendment of the plaint. It is submitted that the said amendment is very necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case as the allotment pertains to the property which is the subject matter of the suit, regarding which respondent No.1/plaintiff has sought declaration as well as the relief of injunction.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for contesting respondent No.1/plaintiff and is of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. Respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration. The headnote of the said suit is reproduced hereinbelow:

“Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to get transfer the ownership and allotment of plot No.94 measuring 45 Feet X 100 Feet in Khasra No.758 Min Mauja Bhirdana, Tehsil and District Fatehabad in his name from the defendants No.3 to 8 and adjoining space and public street as shown in th