108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.04.2026 PREM SINGH ...Petitioner Vs.

PALA RAM ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent-plaintiff, Pala Ram, instituted a civil suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner- defendant from forcibly and illegally dispossessing him from the suit property and from interfering in his peaceful possession thereof. The plaintiff pleaded ownership/possession over the suit property and apprehended unlawful interference at the hands of the defendant. The said suit was contested by the petitioner-defendant by filing a detailed written statement, wherein the averments made in the plaint were specifically denied and disputed. During the pendency of the suit, and at a stage when the matter had already been fixed for the defendant’s evidence, the petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. By way of the proposed amendment, the petitioner sought to incorporate an additional preliminary legal objection based on the principle of res judicata, contending that the suit was barred on account of earlier adjudication between the parties. However, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala, vide the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, dismissed the said application for amendment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order declining permission to amend the written statement, the petitioner–defendant has preferred the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled legal position governing amendment of written statements. It is submitted that the law relating to amendment of written statements is comparatively more liberal than that applicable to amendments of plaints, as the defendant is entitled to raise all permissible defences so as to effectively contest the claim of the plaintiff. Learned counsel further contended that the proposed amendment merely seeks to incorporate an additional legal plea of res judicata, which is purely a question of law and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even in appeal, provided it does not require elaborate evidence or cause prejudice to the opposite party. Learned counsel further contends that learned Trial Court has erred in mechanically applying the “due diligence” test and in overlooking that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is primarily intended to regulate amendments of pleadings at the instance of the plaintiff, and is not to be applied with the same strictness in the case of written statements.

4. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Trial Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption of prejudice, whereas the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the defence already set up, nor does it introduce any inconsistent or mutually destructive plea. The amendment, it is submitted, is only clarificatory in nature and is intended to place the complete defence of the petitioner on record. He further submitted that mere delay in filing the application for amendment cannot, by itself, be a valid ground for rejection of an otherwise legally permissible and bona fide defence, particularly when no irreparable prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent-plaintiff.

5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Civil Judge has recorded detailed reasons while dismissing the application for amendment. It has been noted that the suit was instituted on 10.10.2019 and the written