131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3779-2023 Date of Decision:- 15.07.2026 PARMINDER KAUR AND ORS ....Petitioners Vs. TARSEM SINGH AND ORS. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocae with Mr. Gurwinder Singh Khattra, Advocate for respondent No.1. ***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed civil revision for quashing of order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mukerian vide which application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint has been erroneously allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 argued that Tarsem Singh filed suit for permanent injunction with regards to land measuring 41/2 marlas out of 9 marlas of the land comprised in khewat No.117/109, Khatoni No.195 situated in village Channi Nand Singh as per jamabandi for the year 2018-2019, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur and also for declaration being adverse owner in possession since the year 1962 till date. Said civil suit was contested by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 by filing their detailed written statement (Annexure P-4). During the pendency of said suit, the plaintiff filed application under Order 6 Rule SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3779-2023 -2- 17 read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-5) for amendment of the plaint. Plaintiff wanted to amend the head note as well as prayer clause by writing 4½ instead of 41/2 and further in para No.3 the words ‘now’ instead of ‘no’. Said application was contested by petitioner/defendant Nos.1 to 3 by filing reply (Annexure P-6). Without considering the facts, the application for amendment of plaint was wrongly allowed by passing impugned order dated 31.05.2023. It is pointed out that the respondent/plaintiff cannot be permitted to change the stand taken in the plaint regarding the suit property in question. Gram Panchayat has already filed application under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 in the Court of DDPO-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-2). Copy of the jamabandi for the year 2018-2019 (wrongly written as ‘2018-2029’) is annexed as Annexure P-3. In-fact, there is no merits in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The impugned order dated 31.05.2023 allowing the amendment of plaint is not justified. Therefore, the aforesaid impugned order may be set aside by accepting the present civil revision. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 did not advance any argument. 4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. As per record, Tarsem Singh – plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction (Annexure P-1) which is contested by defendant Nos.1 to 3/petitioners by filing written statement (Annexure P-4). So far as the merits of the case is concerned, it is matter of trial. However, during the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint. Facts mentioned in SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3779-2023 -3- para No.2 of the application clearly indicate that there are typographical errors in the plaint which the plaintiff wants to amend by filing present amendment application. In the head note of the plaint as well as prayer clause, he wants to write 4 ½ instead of 41/2 and in para No.3 he wants to write ‘now’ instead of ‘no’. In-fact, it is a case of careless drafting of the plaint filed in the Court without going through the same. The claim of the respondent/plaintiff cannot be rejected on account of typographical error in the plaint. The learned Trial Court, while allowing the application for amendment of the plaint vide order dated 31.05.2023, duly considered the aforesaid factual position. 5. In light of this, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mukerian and the same is, accordingly, upheld. Consequently, civil revision preferred by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 stands dismissed. 6. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 15.07.2026 snd Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document