##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

CR-3353-2026

Date of decision: 21.04.2026

Jaswinder Kaur

. . . . Petitioner

Vs.

Dheeraj Sharma since deceased through his LRs

. . . . Respondent

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated

13.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Kapurthala, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff–petitioner

under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint

has been dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner instituted a suit for

specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18.11.2016, along with a

consequential relief of confirmation of possession. In the plaint, a categorical

stand was taken that possession of the suit property had already been delivered

to the petitioner. The respondents–defendants, however, contested the suit

and specifically pleaded that the petitioner was never put in possession of the

property.

3. During the course of trial, the petitioner, while appearing as PW-1,

admitted in her cross-examination that she was not in possession of the suit

property and that the defendants were residing therein. Despite such

admission and despite the clear stand taken by the defendants in the written

statement, the petitioner did not seek any amendment of the plaint at the

relevant stage. The parties thereafter led their respective evidence and the

matter reached the stage of rebuttal evidence.

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.04.22 14:43

I agree to specified portions of

this document

Chandigarh

CR-3353-2026 2026:PHHC:060185

4. At that juncture, the petitioner moved an application seeking

amendment of the plaint by deleting the words “confirmation of possession”

from the relief clause, thereby in effect converting the nature of the relief into

one for possession by way of specific performance.

5. The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the matter,

dismissed the application holding that the same had been filed at a belated

stage after commencement of trial; that the petitioner had prior knowledge of

the facts; that no due diligence had been shown; and that the proposed

amendment would change the nature of the suit.

6. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that the amendment sought is necessary for determining the real

controversy between the parties and that the Court is empowered to allow

amendment at any stage in order to do complete justice. Reliance is placed on

Surender Kumar Sharma vs Makhan Singh, 2009 (10) SCC 626. It is argued that

the proposed amendment is merely clarificatory in nature and does not

introduce a new cause of action.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record, this Court finds no merit in the present revision petition.

8. It is trite that though amendments to pleadings are to be liberally

allowed to advance the cause of justice, such power is circumscribed by the

proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which mandates that no amendment shall be

allowed after commencement of trial unless the Court is satisfied that despite

due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the

commencement of trial.

9. In the present case, the petitioner was not only put to notice

through the written statement that she was not in possession of the suit

property, but she herself admitted this fact during her cross-examination. Even

thereafter, sufficient opportunity was available to seek amendment before the

commencement of defendant’s evidence or at least during the course of trial.

However, no such step was taken. The application has been filed only after the

conclusion of evidence, when the case had reached the stage of rebuttal

evidence.

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.04.22 14:43

I agree to specified portions of

this document Page 2 of 3

Chandigarh

CR-3353-2026 2026:PHHC:060185

10. The requirement of “due diligence”