##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

116 CR-3239-2026 Date of Decision.: 17.04.2026

Rajesh Kumar Sharma …..Pe00oner Vs.

Rajender Pershad Sharma and Others .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate for the pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present civil revision has been filed by the defendants-

pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oners assailing the order dated 13.03.2026 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal, whereby the applica(cid:29)on filed by the plain(cid:29)ff- respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec(cid:29)on 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed subject to

costs of ₹10,000/-.

2. The suit in ques(cid:29)on has been ins(cid:29)tuted by the plain(cid:29)ff seeking declara(cid:29)on, permanent injunc(cid:29)on and joint possession in respect of the suit property while challenging, inter alia, a Will dated 25.08.2014 and

other subsequent instruments.

3. During pendency of the suit, the plain(cid:29)ff moved an applica(cid:29)on for amendment pleading that the executant of the Will had subsequently cancelled the same by execu(cid:29)ng a cancella(cid:29)on deed dated 20.05.2015, which fact allegedly came to his knowledge later through his maternal uncle, who had custody of the document. The trial Court, a@er hearing

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-3239-2026

both sides, allowed the amendment.

4. Learned senior advocate for the pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner contends that the amendment has been sought at a belated stage a@er commencement of trial and a@er conclusion of defendants’ evidence. It is argued that the alleged cancella(cid:29)on deed is forged and fabricated and the amendment has been moved only to fill lacunae in the plain(cid:29)ff’s case. It is further submiCed that the requirement of due diligence, as contained in the proviso to Order

VI Rule 17 CPC, has not been sa(cid:29)sfied.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner and have perused the paper-book.

6. The scope of interference in revision against an interlocutory order allowing amendment of pleadings is limited. Unless the order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdic(cid:29)onal error or material irregularity, this Court would be slow to subs(cid:29)tute its own discre(cid:29)on for that exercised by the trial

Court.

7. Order VI Rule 17 CPC confers wide power upon the Court to permit amendment of pleadings where such amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the par(cid:29)es. The dominant object of the provision is to avoid mul(cid:29)plicity of li(cid:29)ga(cid:29)on and to enable complete

adjudica(cid:29)on of disputes in one lis.

8. In the present case, the main controversy in the suit includes challenge to the Will dated 25.08.2014. The proposed amendment seeks to plead that the said Will stood cancelled subsequently through a deed dated 20.05.2015. Whether such document is genuine, valid or fabricated is not a maCer to be conclusively examined at the stage of considering amendment. Those are ques(cid:29)ons of evidence to be adjudicated during

trial.

9. The conten(cid:29)on of the pe(cid:29)(cid:29)oner that the amendment is belated also does not persuade this Court to interfere. The trial Court has

Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-3239-2026

no(cid:29)ced the plain(cid:29)ff’s explana(cid:29)on that the document surfaced subsequently and the fact came to his knowledge therea@er. Whether such explana(cid:29)on ul(cid:29)mately inspires confidence is a maCer for apprecia(cid:29)on at final adjudica(cid:29)on. At the stage of amendment, the Court is only to see

whether the plea is bona fide and relevant to the controversy.

10. It may also be noted that the trial Court has compensated the defendants