CR-6451-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jaspal Singh Jaswinder Singh CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Dharamveer Banyal, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), District Hoshiarpur Jaswinder Singh under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the application as well as affidavit has been allowed. Brief facts 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plain Jaswinder Singh filed a suit against the defendant Jaspal Singh for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in which defendants were restrained from interfering and encroaching upon the peaceful possession of th of law vide order dated 05.07.2022. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for punishing the defendant for wilful disobedie application, it was alleged in paragraph 3 that on 17.05.2022 the defendant forcibly (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS Jaswinder Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Dharamveer Banyal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-defendant Jaspal Singh for setting aside the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), District Hoshiarpur, whereby the application moved by plaintiff Jaswinder Singh under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the application as well as affidavit has been allowed. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plain Jaswinder Singh filed a suit against the defendant Jaspal Singh for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in which defendants were restrained from interfering and encroaching upon the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land till further orders except in due course of law vide order dated 05.07.2022. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for punishing the defendant for wilful disobedience and violation of the injunction order. In the said application, it was alleged in paragraph 3 that on 17.05.2022 the defendant forcibly -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6451-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 15.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Dharamveer Banyal, Advocate for the petitioner. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the defendant Jaspal Singh for setting aside the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dasuya , whereby the application moved by plaintiff-respondent Jaswinder Singh under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the application as The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plain Jaswinder Singh filed a suit against the defendant Jaspal Singh for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in which defendants were restrained from interfering and encroaching upon the peaceful e plaintiff over the suit land till further orders except in due course of law vide order dated 05.07.2022. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for punishing the defendant nce and violation of the injunction order. In the said application, it was alleged in paragraph 3 that on 17.05.2022 the defendant forcibly - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the defendant Jaspal Singh for setting aside the Dasuya, respondent Jaswinder Singh under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the application as The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff Jaswinder Singh filed a suit against the defendant Jaspal Singh for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in which defendants were restrained from interfering and encroaching upon the peaceful e plaintiff over the suit land till further orders except in due course of law vide order dated 05.07.2022. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for punishing the defendant nce and violation of the injunction order. In the said application, it was alleged in paragraph 3 that on 17.05.2022 the defendant forcibly TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6451-2025 (O&M) entered upon the crops despite being fully aware of the stay order. Reply to the application was filed by the presen Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the application as well as the affidavit on the ground that in the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC the date had been as 17.05.2022 in place of 17.07.2022, which was a typographical mistake and required to be corrected for the proper adjudication of the case. It was pleaded that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the case and was necessary for the decision of the real controversy. 3. The said application was opposed by the defendant by filing reply wherein it was submitted that the plaintiff had already availed more than twenty opportunities to conclude his evidence and when the ca examination of his witnesses, the present application was moved only with a view to introduce a new cause of action by changing the date of the alleged violation. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), the parties, allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It was observed that the proposed amendment was only clerical and typographical in nature and necessary for the correct adjudication of the matter. It was further held that such amendment did not change the nature of the case and no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCC 385, wherein it was held that allowed since procedural technicalities ought not to impede the cause of justice. Accordingly, the application was allowed. (O&M) entered upon the crops despite being fully aware of the stay order. Reply to the application was filed by the present petitioner denying the entire contents. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the application as well as the affidavit on the ground that in the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC the date had been as 17.05.2022 in place of 17.07.2022, which was a typographical mistake and required to be corrected for the proper adjudication of the case. It was pleaded that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the case and was ecessary for the decision of the real controversy. The said application was opposed by the defendant by filing reply wherein it was submitted that the plaintiff had already availed more than twenty opportunities to conclude his evidence and when the ca examination of his witnesses, the present application was moved only with a view to introduce a new cause of action by changing the date of the alleged violation. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), the parties, allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It was observed that the proposed amendment was only clerical and typographical in nature and necessary for the correct adjudication of the matter. It was further held that such did not change the nature of the case and no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi and others, (2006) 2 , wherein it was held that amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed since procedural technicalities ought not to impede the cause of justice. Accordingly, the application was allowed. -2- entered upon the crops despite being fully aware of the stay order. Reply to the t petitioner denying the entire contents. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the application as well as the affidavit on the ground that in the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC the date had been incorrectly mentioned as 17.05.2022 in place of 17.07.2022, which was a typographical mistake and required to be corrected for the proper adjudication of the case. It was pleaded that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the case and was ecessary for the decision of the real controversy. The said application was opposed by the defendant by filing reply wherein it was submitted that the plaintiff had already availed more than twenty opportunities to conclude his evidence and when the case was fixed for cross examination of his witnesses, the present application was moved only with a view to introduce a new cause of action by changing the date of the alleged violation. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dasuya, however, after hearing the parties, allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It was observed that the proposed amendment was only clerical and typographical in nature and necessary for the correct adjudication of the matter. It was further held that such did not change the nature of the case and no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi and others, (2006) 2 amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed since procedural technicalities ought not to impede the cause of justice. - entered upon the crops despite being fully aware of the stay order. Reply to the t petitioner denying the entire contents. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the application as well as the affidavit on the ground that in the incorrectly mentioned as 17.05.2022 in place of 17.07.2022, which was a typographical mistake and required to be corrected for the proper adjudication of the case. It was pleaded that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the case and was The said application was opposed by the defendant by filing reply wherein it was submitted that the plaintiff had already availed more than twenty se was fixed for cross- examination of his witnesses, the present application was moved only with a view ring the parties, allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It was observed that the proposed amendment was only clerical and typographical in nature and necessary for the correct adjudication of the matter. It was further held that such did not change the nature of the case and no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi and others, (2006) 2 amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed since procedural technicalities ought not to impede the cause of justice. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6451-2025 (O&M) 5. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present revision petition contending that the impugned order suffers from illegality. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 6. The principal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was already at the stage of evidence, the trial in the matter had commenced, and therefore the amendment could not have been permitted unless the Court recorded its satisfaction that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter earlier. It is urged that this requireme satisfied. According to the petitioner, by introducing a different date the plaintiff seeks to bring in a new cause of action, and the impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside. Findings 7. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. A perusal of the contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC shows that the date of alleged violation was mentioned as 17.05.2022, which is admittedly prior to the order dated 05.07.2022 grant was wrongly mentioned and is a clerical mistake. The amendment sought only corrects the date to 17.07.2022, which is consistent with the factual situation. The nature of proceedings remains unchang pleaded. 8. The proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC no doubt places an embargo on amendments after commencement of trial, but it is equally well settled that amendments which are necessary for determining the real contro do not alter the cause of action or nature of proceedings should be permitted. (O&M) Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present revision petition hat the impugned order suffers from illegality. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner The principal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was already at the stage of , the trial in the matter had commenced, and therefore the amendment could not have been permitted unless the Court recorded its satisfaction that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter earlier. It is urged that this requirement under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has not been satisfied. According to the petitioner, by introducing a different date the plaintiff seeks to bring in a new cause of action, and the impugned order is therefore liable I have considered the submissions and perused the record. A perusal of the contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC shows that the date of alleged violation was mentioned as 17.05.2022, which is admittedly prior to the order dated 05.07.2022 granting interim injunction. This itself shows that the date was wrongly mentioned and is a clerical mistake. The amendment sought only corrects the date to 17.07.2022, which is consistent with the factual situation. The nature of proceedings remains unchanged and no new cause of action is being The proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC no doubt places an embargo on amendments after commencement of trial, but it is equally well settled that amendments which are necessary for determining the real contro do not alter the cause of action or nature of proceedings should be permitted. -3- Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present revision petition hat the impugned order suffers from illegality. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner The principal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was already at the stage of , the trial in the matter had commenced, and therefore the amendment could not have been permitted unless the Court recorded its satisfaction that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter earlier. It is urged nt under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has not been satisfied. According to the petitioner, by introducing a different date the plaintiff seeks to bring in a new cause of action, and the impugned order is therefore liable I have considered the submissions and perused the record. A perusal of the contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC shows that the date of alleged violation was mentioned as 17.05.2022, which is admittedly prior to the ing interim injunction. This itself shows that the date was wrongly mentioned and is a clerical mistake. The amendment sought only corrects the date to 17.07.2022, which is consistent with the factual situation. The ed and no new cause of action is being The proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC no doubt places an embargo on amendments after commencement of trial, but it is equally well settled that amendments which are necessary for determining the real controversy and which do not alter the cause of action or nature of proceedings should be permitted. - Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present revision petition The principal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was already at the stage of , the trial in the matter had commenced, and therefore the amendment could not have been permitted unless the Court recorded its satisfaction that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter earlier. It is urged nt under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has not been satisfied. According to the petitioner, by introducing a different date the plaintiff seeks to bring in a new cause of action, and the impugned order is therefore liable I have considered the submissions and perused the record. A perusal of the contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC shows that the date of alleged violation was mentioned as 17.05.2022, which is admittedly prior to the ing interim injunction. This itself shows that the date was wrongly mentioned and is a clerical mistake. The amendment sought only corrects the date to 17.07.2022, which is consistent with the factual situation. The ed and no new cause of action is being The proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC no doubt places an embargo on amendments after commencement of trial, but it is equally well settled that versy and which TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6451-2025 (O&M) 9. Procedural laws are intended to advance justice and should not be interpreted to defeat substantial rights. In the present case, correction of a date, which on the face of it was wrongly stated, falls squarely within the ambit of permissible amendment. 10. The trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with law by holding that the amendment is necessary to enable effective adjudication of the controversy. No jurisdic illegality is found in the impugned order which may warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Conclusion 11. In view of the abov revision petition, the same stands dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 15, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) Procedural laws are intended to advance justice and should not be interpreted to defeat substantial rights. In the present case, correction of a date, h on the face of it was wrongly stated, falls squarely within the ambit of permissible amendment. The trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with law by holding that the amendment is necessary to enable ication of the controversy. No jurisdic illegality is found in the impugned order which may warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- Procedural laws are intended to advance justice and should not be interpreted to defeat substantial rights. In the present case, correction of a date, h on the face of it was wrongly stated, falls squarely within the ambit of The trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with law by holding that the amendment is necessary to enable ication of the controversy. No jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality is found in the impugned order which may warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. e discussion, finding no merit in the present Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE - Procedural laws are intended to advance justice and should not be interpreted to defeat substantial rights. In the present case, correction of a date, h on the face of it was wrongly stated, falls squarely within the ambit of The trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with law by holding that the amendment is necessary to enable tional error, perversity or illegality is found in the impugned order which may warrant interference in e discussion, finding no merit in the present TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document