THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 Civil Revision No.6096 of 2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: May 4^th, 2026 Ashok Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Gurdial Saini (since deceased) through LRs and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Ms. Nishtha and Ms. Shaveta, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the respondents.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 passed by District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the title of the appeal has been allowed.

2. The facts which are apparent from the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 and are not disputed before this Court are that Hitesh, Harshman and Chaman Lal were not made parties in the memo of parties of the appeal which was instituted by Gurdial Saini (deceased) through his LRs (respondent No.1 herein) as the names of the said three persons were not mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court, although the same were recorded in the decree sheet. The said mistake in the grounds of appeal had occurred on account of the mistake committed by the trial Court. On 01.04.2021 when the said mistake came to the notice of respondent No.1 (appellant before the First Appellate Court), an application under Order 41 Rule 20 CPC was filed for rectification of the error and for impleading the abovesaid persons in the array of the parties.

3. During the pendency of the said application, respondent No.1 moved an appropriate application under Section 151 CPC for rectification of the judgment of the trial Court and vide order dated 24.03.2022, the said rectification was carried out in the judgment of the trial Court. The order dated 24.03.2022 is annexed as Annexure P-2 and a perusal of the same would show that all the three names of Hitesh, Harshman and Chaman Lal were ordered to be added by the trial Court. Since the said names had been added in the judgment of the trial Court, respondent No.1 who had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 20 CPC withdrew the application on 31.03.2022 by making a statement that he would file a fresh application for amendment of the headnote of the grounds of appeal along with certified copy of the judgment and in view of the same, the application under Order 41 Rule 20 CPC was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn. The said order in which the withdrawal was sought was passed in the presence of Shri V.K. Gupta, who was the counsel for the present petitioner and the other persons before the First Appellate Court. On 21.04.2022, respondent No.1 accordingly filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

4. The First Appellate Court, while considering the said application and ordering the impleadment of the said three persons vide the impugned order dated 27.09.2023, took into consideration provision of Order 41 Rule 20 CPC.

5. The First Appellate Court further observed that the judgment and decree in the present case was passed on 25.05.2017 and the appeal was filed by respondent No.1 before the First Appellate Court on 06.07.2017 and the names of the said three persons could not be mentioned on account of an error of the trial Court in the name of the parties in the judgment and that respondent No.1 had moved all the required applications on account of which the delay occurred. It was observed that the said three persons who were parties as per the decree of the trial Court were necessarily required to be added as party as the matter could not be adjudicated effectively without adding them as parties and in view of the same, the First Appellate Court invoked its power under Order 41 Rule 20 CPC and made the said three persons as parties and accordingly, while invoking the said power, even allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in the interest of justice ₹

and the same was done subject to the payment of 3,000/- to the responde