IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 117 CR-8759-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.12.2025 Mandeep Kaur @ Sandeep Kaur …..Pe33oner Vs. Manjit Kaur and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner is plainff in civil suit bearing No.CS-3994-2023 tled as “Mandeep Kaur vs. Manjit Kaur and anr.” pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. She is aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-8), whereby her applicaon for amendment of the plaint has been declined. Perusal of the paper-book would reveal that plainff had filed the suit seeking a decree of permanent injuncon against the defendants regarding the property in dispute. During pendency, she moved the applicaon for amendment of the plaint in order to add the relief of separate possession by way of paron of the suit property by metes and bounds. She also wanted to implead other co-sharers of the property in dispute, who were recorded as joint owners in the revenue record. Trial Court found that issues have been framed wayback on 12.09.2023. The NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.05 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8759-2025 (O&M) trial has commenced. With these observaons, trial Court rejected the applicaon for amendment. Assailing the order, it is contended by learned counsel for the peoner that by denying the amendment, there is likelihood of mulplicity of suits. In the alternave, learned counsel submits that peoner-plainff be given liberty to file a separate suit for possession by way of paron. Admi;edly the simplicitor suit for seeking a decree of permanent injuncon was filed. The nature of such a suit is enrely different from a suit seeking paron by metes and bounds and therefore, the proposed amendment will substanally change the nature of the suit. Apart from this, all other co-sharers will have to be impleaded. In these circumstances, learned Trial Court has rightly declined the amendment. As such, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and so, the present revision is dismissed. However peoner will be at liberty to file separate suit for possession by way of paron of the property in dispute, if law so permits. Pending applicaon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE December 05, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.05 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document