120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1847 of 2019 Date of Decision : August 27, 2026 Jaspreet Kaur Bagga and another . . . . Petitioners vs. Manjit Kaur (since deceased) through LR and others . . . . Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. D.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Khullar, Advocate for contesting respondents (Through V.C.). Mr. Tajender Joshi, Rampal Kohle and Mr. Himanshu Khanna, Advocates for respondent No.7. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 20.11.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby her application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment was necessitated on account of subsequent developments during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs had originally sought declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the funds, bank accounts and insurance policies of the deceased. It was subsequently discovered, according to the plaintiffs that defendant No.10 had disbursed the amount of certain insurance policies to defendant No.1, despite the order of restraint passed by the Court. The plaintiffs, therefore, sought incorporation of a consequential claim for recovery of ₹8,86,400/- along with interest and rendition of accounts. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the revision while defending the impugned order. It is contended that the SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.1847 of 2019 2026:PHHC:120743 plaintiffs ought to have instituted a separate suit for recovery and, in any event, the claim sought to be introduced by way of amendment had already become barred by limitation. It is submitted that the document evidencing disbursement of the amount was dated 21.07.2014, whereas the application for amendment was filed on 31.07.2017. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the paper-book. 5. The trial Court declined the amendment primarily on the ground that the document dated 21.07.2014 evidencing disbursement was available on the record, whereas the amendment application was filed after more than three years, and no satisfactory explanation for the delay had been furnished. 6. The impugned order, however, overlooks an important aspect of the procedural history of the case. The application for amendment was decided on 20.11.2018. It is in the subsequent part of the proceedings recorded on the same date that the trial Court framed issues and fixed the matter for plaintiffs evidence on 04.12.2018. Thus, at the stage when the application for amendment was considered, the trial had not commenced. 7. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC restricts the power to allow amendment after commencement of trial, where the Court is satisfied that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. The requirement of due diligence contemplated by the proviso, therefore, assumes significance, where the application is made after commencement of trial. In the present case, the application was considered before the issues were framed and before the parties had commenced leading evidence. The rigour of the proviso, therefore, could not have been invoked in the manner adopted by the learned trial Court. 8. The proposed amendment also cannot be said to introduce a wholly new and unrelated cause of action. The original suit itself concerns the plaintiffs claimed share in the funds, bank accounts and insurance policies of the deceased. The plaintiffs case is that during the pendency of the suit, the amount of the policies forming part of the subject matter of the suit was SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.1847 of 2019 2026:PHHC:120743 disbursed to defendant No.1 and, consequently, a consequential relief of recovery and rendition of accounts became necessary. The proposed amendment thus has a direct nexus with the existing controversy and is intended to enable the Court to adjudicate the entire dispute between the parties. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the plaintiffs ought to have filed a separate suit for recovery also cannot, at this stage, furnish a ground to reject the amendment. Where the proposed relief arises out of, or is directly connected with, the subject matter already before the Court, multiplicity of proceedings is itself a relevant consideration in deciding an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The mere fact that the amended claim may constitute a relief which could independently have been sought in a separate proceeding does not necessarily mean that amendment of the existing plaint is impermissible. 10. Another objection raised on behalf of the respondents is that the claim for recovery is barred by limitation. There is no dispute that the document relied upon by the plaintiffs is dated 21.07.2014 and that the amendment application was filed on 31.07.2017. However, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they came to know about the relevant disbursement only on 12.07.2017 upon inspection of the file and noticing the certificate dated 21.07.2014 issued by HDFC Bank. 11. Whether the plaintiffs had knowledge of the disbursement earlier, whether the facts pleaded constitute sufficient explanation for the delay, and from which date the period of limitation is to be computed are matters which, in the facts of the present case, cannot appropriately be conclusively determined merely while considering the application for amendment. The defendants have disputed the plaintiffs entitlement to the amount and have also taken the stand that the amount was rightly paid to defendant No.1, who was the registered nominee. These matters themselves require adjudication on the basis of the pleadings and, where necessary, evidence. SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.1847 of 2019 2026:PHHC:120743 12. More importantly, the proposed amendment is not liable to be rejected merely because the defendant raises a plea of limitation. Where the issue of limitation depends upon disputed questions of fact or upon the date of knowledge, the appropriate course is to permit the necessary pleadings to be brought on record and leave the issue open for determination at the appropriate stage. The Court, while deciding an application for amendment, is not required to conduct a mini-trial on the merits of the proposed claim. 13. It is also important that allowing the amendment does not amount to allowing the plaintiffs claim for recovery. The defendants would have full opportunity to contest the amended claim, including on the grounds of limitation, maintainability, entitlement, the legal effect of nomination and the alleged disbursement of the policy amounts. Those objections shall remain fully available to the defendants. 14. At the same time, the delay in seeking the amendment cannot be completely ignored. Although the amendment is being sought at a stage before commencement of trial, the plaintiffs have taken considerable time after the date of the document relied upon by them. The defendants would consequently be required to meet an additional claim at this stage. The ends of justice would, therefore, be adequately met by allowing the amendment subject to costs. 15. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.11.2018 is set aside. The application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed, subject to payment of ₹10,000/- as costs to the contesting defendants. 16. The amended plaint shall be taken on record on payment of costs. The defendants shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to file amended/additional written statement and to raise all permissible pleas, including the plea of limitation. 17. The trial Court shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law and, if necessary, frame/recast the issues arising from the amended pleadings. The question whether the claim for recovery is barred by SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.1847 of 2019 2026:PHHC:120743 limitation, whether the plaintiffs had knowledge of the disbursement prior to the date asserted by them, and whether she is otherwise entitled to the amount claimed, shall be decided by the trial Court on the basis of the pleadings and evidence, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order. 18. It is clarified that the present order only permits the plaintiffs to incorporate the proposed relief in the pending suit and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits or limitation of the amended claim. 19. Revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. August 27, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No SARITA RANI 2026.08.27 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document