CR-6393-2019 (O&M)

Page 1 of 4

240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-6393-2019 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 24.02.2023

Dalip Singh

.…Petitioner

Versus

Chajju Singh

….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate &

Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Manveer Kaur, Advocate

for Mr. J.S. Bhandohel, Advocate

for the respondent.

*****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petition herein is for setting aside order dated 15.02.2019

(Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division),

Moonak whereby application of petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for

amendment of written statement, was dismissed.

2.

Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the revision petition.

2.1.

Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for possession of suit land as well

as for permanent injunction against petitioner/defendant. Petitioner/defendant

filed a detailed written statement thereto. However, during pendency of the

suit petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for

amendment of the written statement.

ASHISH

2023.03.03 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CR-6393-2019 (O&M)

Page 2 of 4

2.2.

As per the contents of the application, petitioner/defendant

contended that his father Chota Singh @ Udey Singh had purchased the suit

property from the predecessors of respondent/plaintiff and also from the

predecessor of Sohan Singh son of Siam Kaur vide Bahi writing which was

entered about 62-year ago and as per the said entries, possession of suit

property was delivered to father of petitioner. After the death of father of

petitioner, the petitioner came into possession of the suit property. He had

constructed a house on the said property and electricity meter was installed and

since then he is residing in the said property along with family. But as the

entry was not made on the basis of Bahi writings in the revenue record, Sohan

Singh son of Siam Kaur executed an agreement to sell dated 12.04.2018 in

favour of defendant wherein he admitted the Bahi entry/ownership and

possession of petitioner/defendant on the suit property and moreover the said

agreement was duly executed vide registered sale deed dated 25.05.2018 vide

which defendant was admitted to be in possession of the suit property.

Respondent/plaintiff filed reply to the said application. However, vide

impugned order the application for amendment of written statement was

dismissed.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the application has

been dismissed with the presumption that petitioner wants to change his

pleadings. Ld. counsel contends that petitioner does not want to change the

pleadings that he purchased the property 62-year ago, rather he wants to add

additional information of the subsequent agreement to sell and sale deed, as

ASHISH

2023.03.03 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CR-6393-2019 (O&M)

Page 3 of 4

mentioned in order dated 14.10.2019 passed by this Court, while issuing notice

of motion to respondent.

4.

Perusal of impugned order reflects that on one hand Ld. Court

below was conscious that liberal approach has to be adopted while allowing

the parties to seek amendment in their pleadings, at the same time, it seems to

have lost sight of the fact that the application seeking amendment of written

statement filed by petitioner was filed immediately on coming to know of

execution of agreement to sell dated 12.04.2018 and there was no delay as

pointed out by plaintiff or even otherwise made out. Furthermore, the

amendment sought would not have in any manner delayed the Court

proceedings as the trial is at the very nascent stage since the issues are also yet

to be framed.

5.

As regards the circumstances l