CR-6178-2022 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 CR-6178-2022 Date of decision :- 02.07.2026 Harnail Singh .... Petitioner Versus Jasvir Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate and Ms. Mannat Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate and Ms. Suman Rani, Advocate for the respondent. **** AMARJOT BHATTI J. 1. Petitioner Harnail Singh has filed civil revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 10.10.2022 (P- 1) passed by learned Civil Judge, Mansa in Civil Suit No. 226/2022 titled “Harnail Singh Vs. Jasvir Singh”, whereby application filed by petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed illegally and erroneously. 2. Brief facts of the case are, petitioner/plaintiff Harnail Singh filed suit for recovery of Rs. 12,52,200/- against defendant Jasvir Singh (Annexure P-2) by taking the stand that defendant borrowed various amounts on different dates with promise to pay interest on the said amounts. On the demand raised by plaintiff, defendant issued cheque for a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs of HDFC Bank, LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.06 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6178-2022 -2- Branch Bhikhi dated 18.11.2021 and another cheque for a sum of Rs. 4.00 lacs of HDFC Bank, Branch Bhikhi dated 20.12.2021, with the assurance of encashment. The cheques were dishonored. Finally, when defendant did not return the money, plaintiff filed the suit for recovery. Along with present suit for recovery, plaintiff filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the defendant from alienating the land (Annexure P-3). In order to avoid the payment, defendant Jasvir Singh had transferred the property in favour of his son Gurpreet Singh vide Transfer Deed dated 31.03.2022. Under these circumstances, plaintiff filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the suit as well as application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead Gurpreet Singh as one of the defendant (Annexure P-5). 3. Application was contested by defendant (respondent in this case), which was declined by learned trial Court by passing impugned order dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved, present civil revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel representing petitioner/plaintiff argued that respondent/defendant transferred the property in favour of his son Gurpreet Singh in order to defeat the claim of petitioner/plaintiff. In fact, respondent/defendant had already transferred the property in favour of his son on 31.03.2022 i.e. before filing of present suit. This fact came to the knowledge of petitioner/plaintiff later on. Suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff is pertaining to the recovery of Rs. 10,10,000/- along with interest i.e. Rs.2,42,200/-, total amount Rs. 12,52,200/- alongwith future interest. By LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.06 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6178-2022 -3- transfer of property, respondent/defendant has tried to defeat the claim of petitioner/plaintiff. Without considering the matter in controversy, learned trial Court has wrongly declined the application filed by petitioner/plaintiff. In fact, changed facts and circumstances are required to be incorporated in the plaint and for final adjudication of case Gurpreet Singh son of Jasvir Singh is also a necessary party. Therefore, aforesaid impugned order may kindly be set aside by accepting present civil revision and application filed by petitioner/plaintiff seeking amendment of plaint as well as impleading Gurpreet Singh son of Jasvir Singh as defendant No. 2, may kindly be allowed as prayed for. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent/defendant opposed present civil revision on the ground that with proposed amendment, entire nature of suit would be changed. For the disposal of matter in controversy, neither Gurpreet Singh son of Jasvir Singh is a necessary party nor property transferred in favour of Gurpreet Singh is in dispute. Entire claim of petitioner/plaintiff is against respondent/defendant Jasvir Singh which is yet to be decided. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of case, application filed by petitioner/plaintiff was rightly rejected. 6. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. Admittedly, Harnail Singh – petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for recovery against Javir Singh – respondent/defendant by alleging that defendant had borrowed various amounts on different dates which he was to pay along with interest. It is also alleged that said amounts were to be adjusted by sale of crop. However, respondent/defendant did not come to his shop for LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.06 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6178-2022 -4- sale of crop and on repeated insistence on the part of petitioner/plaintiff, respondent/defendant issued a cheque dated 18.11.2021 for a sum of Rs. 8.00 lacs and another cheque dated 20.12.2021 for a sum of Rs. 4.00 lacs. Said cheques were duly presented for encashment, but same were dishonored. Finally, petitioner/plaintiff filed present suit for recovery along with interest. It is matter of record that along with suit for recovery, he also filed one application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating the land in any manner as detailed therein. After filing of suit, petitioner/plaintiff came to know that Jasvir Singh had transferred the property in favour of his son Gurpreet Singh, as a result, he filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint as well as under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead Gurpreet Singh son of Jasvir Singh as defendant No. 2. Suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff (Annexure P-2) is pertaining to recovery of amount which respondent/defendant had allegedly taken on different dates in the year 2020. In the entire plaint, there was no claim of petitioner/plaintiff against Gurpreet Singh, son of respondent/defendant Jasvir Singh. Suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff is still at initial stage and same is yet to be decided on merits. Admittedly, before filing of present suit for recovery on 02.04.2022, respondent/defendant Jasvir Singh had already executed transfer deed in favour of his son Gurpreet Singh on 31.03.2022. Till then petitioner/plaintiff had no claim on the said property transferred by respondent/defendant in favour of his son Gurpreet Singh. It is not the case that there was any stay LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.06 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6178-2022 -5- order in favour of petitioner/plaintiff which is violated by respondent/defendant during the pendency of suit. 7. Considering the aforesaid factual position, I do not find any reason to interfere in impugned order dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge and same is, accordingly upheld. Resultantly, finding no merits in present civil revision, same is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 02.07.2026 lalit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.06 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document