IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 117 CR-3184-2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2026 Om Parkash through his LR Nikhil Sharma and another . . . . Petitioners Vs. Ajay Jain and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, whereby the application preferred by the plaintiffs (legal representatives of the original plaintiff) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed. 2. The original plaintiff, Om Parkash, instituted Civil Suit No.7017 of 2010/2013 seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over vacant possession of two rooms situated on the 2nd floor of House No.581, Block-H, Palam Vihar, Gurugram, besides consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining them from alienating or creating any third- party interest in the suit property. 3. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement on 15.11.2010. Defendant No.2, however, had not been served and the matter was adjourned for his service. Before the next effective date, the sole plaintiff expired. His legal representatives were ultimately brought on record vide order dated 08.05.2013. Defendant No.2 entered appearance on 14.11.2013. Subsequently, VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3184-2016 2026:PHHC:100114 the defendants were proceeded against ex parte, though the said order was later recalled. It is not disputed that when the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was moved, the pleadings were still incomplete, replication had not been filed and no issues had yet been framed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs merely seek to challenge the documents relied upon by defendant No.1 in his written statement, namely the General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, Will and subsequent sale deed, which constitute the foundation of the defence. It is argued that the trial Court has rejected the application solely on the ground that it was filed nearly five years after the written statement, without appreciating that the delay stood satisfactorily explained owing to the death of the original plaintiff, substitution of his legal representatives, delayed service upon defendant No.2 and other intervening proceedings. It is further submitted that the trial had not even commenced and, therefore, the amendment deserved to be considered liberally. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the proposed amendment seeks to introduce a challenge to documents executed between the years 2004 and 2009, which had already become barred by limitation, when the amendment application was filed. Reliance has been placed upon L.C. Hanumanthappa v. H.B. Shivakumar, (2016) 1 SCC 332, M/s RMS Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Lakhmi Law Finder Doc Id # 2384548, and Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559, to contend that a time-barred relief cannot ordinarily be introduced by way of amendment. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. The object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC is to enable the Court to determine the real controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is equally well settled that where the trial has not commenced, amendments are to be considered liberally unless they are mala fide, cause VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3184-2016 2026:PHHC:100114 irretrievable prejudice to the opposite party, completely change the nature of the suit, or seek to introduce a wholly new and ex facie time-barred cause of action. 8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that on the date the amendment application was filed, pleadings had not been completed, replication had not been filed and issues had not been framed. Consequently, the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which restricts amendments after commencement of trial, has no application. 9. The trial Court has rejected the application principally on the ground that it was filed nearly five years after the written statement. Such an approach, in the considered opinion of this Court, overlooks the peculiar factual matrix of the case. 10. Immediately after defendant No.1 filed the written statement on 15.11.2010, the original plaintiff expired. Considerable time was consumed in bringing his legal representatives on record, the application of which was ultimately allowed on 08.05.2013. Defendant No.2 entered appearance only thereafter. Subsequently, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte and the ex parte proceedings were later recalled. Thus, for a substantial period, the suit remained at the stage of completion of pleadings. The chronology of events clearly demonstrates that the delay in moving the amendment application cannot be attributed to deliberate negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiffs. 11. Equally important is the nature of the proposed amendment. The defendants have founded their defence upon a chain of documents commencing with a General Power of Attorney dated 21.12.2004, followed by an agreement to sell, a Will and culminating in a sale deed dated 01.09.2009. The plaintiffs now seek to challenge the very documents, which constitute the basis of the defence. The amendment is, therefore, directly connected with the controversy already brought before the Court by the defendants themselves. It neither introduces an altogether independent transaction nor substitutes the VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3184-2016 2026:PHHC:100114 original cause of action. Rather, it seeks to enable the Court to comprehensively adjudicate the rival claims of the parties in the same proceedings. 12. The objection regarding limitation undoubtedly deserves serious consideration. The decisions relied upon by the respondents correctly lay down that a wholly new and independent claim, which is ex facie barred by limitation, ought not ordinarily to be permitted by way of amendment. However, those authorities cannot be read as laying down an inflexible rule that every plea of limitation must necessarily result in rejection of an amendment application. 13. Whether the proposed challenge to the documents is barred by limitation depends upon several aspects, including the true nature of the amendment, the applicability of the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, the date from which limitation is to be computed, the nature of the plaintiffs' existing pleadings and the legal effect of the documents relied upon by the defendants. These questions are not so self-evident on the face of the record as to justify outright rejection of the amendment at this preliminary stage. 14. More importantly, permitting the amendment does not deprive the defendants of any valuable right. They shall have full liberty to file an amended written statement and raise every legal objection available to them, including the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment is barred by limitation, is not maintainable or is otherwise legally untenable. The trial Court shall frame appropriate issues and decide those objections independently on their own merits without being influenced by the present order. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that procedural law is intended to facilitate adjudication of disputes on merits and not to thwart it on technical grounds. Since the proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties, the proceedings are still at the pre-trial stage, and no irreparable prejudice VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3184-2016 2026:PHHC:100114 would be caused to the defendants, the learned trial Court was not justified in rejecting the amendment merely on the ground of delay. 16. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court failed to exercise the discretion vested in it in accordance with the settled principles governing Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 17. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated 24.02.2016 is set aside. The application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stands allowed. 18. The petitioners shall file the amended plaint before the learned trial Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondents shall be at liberty to file an additional written statement and raise all pleas available to them in law, including the plea of limitation, maintainability and all other legal and factual objections. The learned trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the suit in accordance with law and decide all issues independently on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, without being influenced by any observations made herein, which are confined only to the adjudication of the amendment application. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 21.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.23 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document