CR-8708-2017 (O&M) [112] Dharam Pal Kadyan Durga widow of Late Shri Silak Ram and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] 06.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint has been declined. [2] along with interest @ 18% per annum from the year 2 realization. The suit is based upon a cheque dated 01.06.2008 issued by Silak Ram, which got dishonoured. The parties to the other. As per the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff pleaded that the amount of plaintiff in the year 2008. After framing of issues and examination of 04 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8708- Date of Decision : Dharam Pal Kadyan versus Durga widow of Late Shri Silak Ram and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Ms. Monika Khatri, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupinder Singh Bairagi, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 25.09.2018. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition is directed against Order dated 06.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), whereby the application filed by the petitioner VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint has been declined. The petitioner filed a suit seeking recovery of along with interest @ 18% per annum from the year 2 realization. The suit is based upon a cheque dated 01.06.2008 issued by Silak Ram, which got dishonoured. The parties to the other. As per the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff pleaded that the amount of ₹28,84,000/- was borrowed by defendant No.2 to 4 from the plaintiff in the year 2008. After framing of issues and examination of 04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.05.2026 …Petitioner versus ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for Mr. Bhupinder Singh Bairagi, Advocate ex parte vide order dated 25.09.2018. The present revision petition is directed against Order dated 06.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint has been declined. The petitioner filed a suit seeking recovery of ₹ 28,84,000/ along with interest @ 18% per annum from the year 2008 till final realization. The suit is based upon a cheque dated 01.06.2008 issued by Silak Ram, which got dishonoured. The parties to the lis are related to each other. As per the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff pleaded that the was borrowed by defendant No.2 to 4 from the plaintiff in the year 2008. After framing of issues and examination of 04 1 The present revision petition is directed against Order dated 06.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), plaintiff under Order 28,84,000/- 008 till final realization. The suit is based upon a cheque dated 01.06.2008 issued by are related to each other. As per the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff pleaded that the was borrowed by defendant No.2 to 4 from the plaintiff in the year 2008. After framing of issues and examination of 04 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-8708-2017 (O&M) witnesses of the plaintiff, the present application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint to the effect that the amoun defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the year 2004 and not in 2008. [3] the suit is based upon changing his stand repeatedly. Not only the plaintiff has deposed claiming that the money was borrowed by defendants in the year 2008. At this stage, allowing the plaintiff to alter his stand would lead to [4] has already commenced. Though the plaintiff claims that the averments made in the plaint with respect to borrowing of money in the year 2008 to be a typographical error notice (Exhibit P the amount was borrowed in the year 2008. Trial Court accordingly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. [5] through record(s) of the case. [6] cheque dated 01.06.2008, plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act namely Silak Ram. Statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 10.05.2012 in the complaint case. In the said complaint, complainant testified that he sold land to one Jai Narain on 08.07.2004 and, on the same day, of ₹8,24,000/ (O&M) witnesses of the plaintiff, the present application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint to the effect that the amoun defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the year 2004 and not in 2008. The application was contested by the defendants, claiming that the suit is based upon falsehood. The plaintiff at his convenience is changing his stand repeatedly. Not only the plaintiff has deposed claiming that the money was borrowed by defendants in the year 2008. At this stage, allowing the plaintiff to alter his stand would lead to de novo trial. The Trial Court dismissed the has already commenced. Though the plaintiff claims that the averments made in the plaint with respect to borrowing of money in the year 2008 to be typographical error, which needs to be corrected notice (Exhibit P-1) issued at the behest of the plaintiff, it was claimed that the amount was borrowed in the year 2008. Trial Court accordingly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. I have heard counsel for the parties and have caref through record(s) of the case. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the dishonoured cheque dated 01.06.2008, plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against father of defendant Nos.2 to namely Silak Ram. Statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 10.05.2012 in the complaint case. In the said complaint, complainant testified that he sold land to one Jai Narain on 08.07.2004 and, on the same day, 8,24,000/- to defendant-Silak Ram. Thus, the stand of the plaintiff even witnesses of the plaintiff, the present application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint to the effect that the amount was borrowed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the year 2004 and not in 2008. The application was contested by the defendants, claiming that The plaintiff at his convenience is the trial has commenced, but even the plaintiff has deposed claiming that the money was borrowed by defendants in the year 2008. At this stage, allowing the plaintiff to alter his The Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the trial has already commenced. Though the plaintiff claims that the averments made in the plaint with respect to borrowing of money in the year 2008 to be , which needs to be corrected, but even in the lega 1) issued at the behest of the plaintiff, it was claimed that the amount was borrowed in the year 2008. Trial Court accordingly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the dishonoured cheque dated 01.06.2008, plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 of the against father of defendant Nos.2 to namely Silak Ram. Statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 10.05.2012 in the complaint case. In the said complaint, complainant testified that he sold land to one Jai Narain on 08.07.2004 and, on the same day, lent an amount Silak Ram. Thus, the stand of the plaintiff even 2 witnesses of the plaintiff, the present application was filed seeking t was borrowed by The application was contested by the defendants, claiming that The plaintiff at his convenience is but even the plaintiff has deposed claiming that the money was borrowed by defendants in the year 2008. At this stage, allowing the plaintiff to alter his application holding that the trial has already commenced. Though the plaintiff claims that the averments made in the plaint with respect to borrowing of money in the year 2008 to be but even in the legal 1) issued at the behest of the plaintiff, it was claimed that the amount was borrowed in the year 2008. Trial Court accordingly ully gone It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the dishonoured cheque dated 01.06.2008, plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 of the against father of defendant Nos.2 to 4, namely Silak Ram. Statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 10.05.2012 in the complaint case. In the said complaint, complainant testified that he sold an amount Silak Ram. Thus, the stand of the plaintiff even RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-8708-2017 (O&M) prior to filing of the present suit before the Courts was that the amount was lent in the year 2004. The aforesaid aspect has been ignored by the Trial Court. [7] have dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to correct a typographical error regarding date of borrowing of money by defendants. altered from 2008 to 2004, improve upon his version as the same is to his own [8] [9] disposed off 22.05.2026 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) prior to filing of the present suit before the Courts was that the amount was in the year 2004. The aforesaid aspect has been ignored by the Trial In view thereof, this Court finds that the Trial Court ought not have dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to correct a typographical error regarding date of borrowing of money by defendants. Keeping in view that the year of lendin altered from 2008 to 2004, it cannot be held that the plaintiff has tried to improve upon his version as the same is to his own In view thereof, the present revision petition is All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. 22.05.2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable prior to filing of the present suit before the Courts was that the amount was in the year 2004. The aforesaid aspect has been ignored by the Trial , this Court finds that the Trial Court ought not have dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to correct a typographical error regarding date of borrowing of money Keeping in view that the year of lending money has been it cannot be held that the plaintiff has tried to improve upon his version as the same is to his own detriment. In view thereof, the present revision petition is allowed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 3 prior to filing of the present suit before the Courts was that the amount was in the year 2004. The aforesaid aspect has been ignored by the Trial , this Court finds that the Trial Court ought not have dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to correct a typographical error regarding date of borrowing of money g money has been it cannot be held that the plaintiff has tried to All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document