CR-8041-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Balbir Singh Vishwjeet Singh CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Vikram Rathore MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra in Civil Suit No. 1396 of 2023, whereby the application fi 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the said order primarily on the ground that the amendment permitted by the trial Court results in introducing an entirely ne nature of the suit. 2. The case of the petitioner, as argued, is that the plaintiff had already executed a registered sale deed dated 27.03.2023 in his favour for a total consideration of ₹79,72,000 through cheques at the time of execution of the sale deed, and the remaining amount of (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS Vishwjeet Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra in Civil Suit No. 1396 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the said order primarily on the ground that the amendment permitted by the trial Court results in introducing an entirely ne nature of the suit. The case of the petitioner, as argued, is that the plaintiff had already executed a registered sale deed dated 27.03.2023 in his favour for a total consideration of ₹84,72,000, out of whic ₹79,72,000 through cheques at the time of execution of the sale deed, and the remaining amount of ₹5 lakh was duly paid in cash, which fact is stated to be -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8041-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 05.12.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra in Civil Suit No. led by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the said order primarily on the ground that the amendment permitted by the trial Court results in introducing an entirely new case and materially alters the The case of the petitioner, as argued, is that the plaintiff-respondent had already executed a registered sale deed dated 27.03.2023 in his favour for a ₹84,72,000, out of which the petitioner had already paid ₹79,72,000 through cheques at the time of execution of the sale deed, and the ₹5 lakh was duly paid in cash, which fact is stated to be - The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra in Civil Suit No. led by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the said order primarily on the ground that the amendment permitted by w case and materially alters the respondent had already executed a registered sale deed dated 27.03.2023 in his favour for a h the petitioner had already paid ₹79,72,000 through cheques at the time of execution of the sale deed, and the ₹5 lakh was duly paid in cash, which fact is stated to be TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.05 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8041-2025 (O&M) supported by affidavits and other documents. It is further the cas that the plaintiff had suppressed these material facts at the time of filing the suit and has now, by moving the application for amendment, attempted to set up a completely new case by relying upon an agreement to sell dated 12.03.2023, was never referred to in the registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, the amendment is mala fide and is intended only to raise a new story with the object of extracting additional money from the petitioner. It is submitted that the trial C ignored the material on record, including the sale deed, the alleged agreement, the cheques and affidavits, and proceeded to allow the amendment contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of amendments. The petitioner contends that the order suffers from patent illegality and liable to be set aside. 3. The trial Court, while allowing the application, considered the nature of the amendment sought and held that it was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. It fur stage and the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit. The court also noted that merits of the claim are not to be examined at the stage of deciding an amendment application, and allowed the s 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated before this Court that the amendment permitted by the trial Court amounts to allowing the respondent to introduce an entirely fresh cause of action which did not find mention in the original plaint. It the facts sought to be introduced are afterthoughts, and that permitting the respondent to amend the plaint would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, who has already paid the entire sal (O&M) supported by affidavits and other documents. It is further the cas that the plaintiff had suppressed these material facts at the time of filing the suit and has now, by moving the application for amendment, attempted to set up a completely new case by relying upon an agreement to sell dated 12.03.2023, was never referred to in the registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, the amendment is mala fide and is intended only to raise a new story with the object of extracting additional money from the petitioner. It is submitted that the trial C ignored the material on record, including the sale deed, the alleged agreement, the cheques and affidavits, and proceeded to allow the amendment contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of amendments. The petitioner contends that er suffers from patent illegality and liable to be set aside. The trial Court, while allowing the application, considered the nature of the amendment sought and held that it was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. It further observed that the suit is at an initial stage and the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit. The court also noted that merits of the claim are not to be examined at the stage of deciding an amendment application, and allowed the s Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated before this Court that the amendment permitted by the trial Court amounts to allowing the respondent to introduce an entirely fresh cause of action which did not find mention in the original plaint. It is argued that such an amendment is impermissible in law, that the facts sought to be introduced are afterthoughts, and that permitting the respondent to amend the plaint would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, who has already paid the entire sale consideration. The petitioner contends that the -2- supported by affidavits and other documents. It is further the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff had suppressed these material facts at the time of filing the suit and has now, by moving the application for amendment, attempted to set up a completely new case by relying upon an agreement to sell dated 12.03.2023, which was never referred to in the registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, the amendment is mala fide and is intended only to raise a new story with the object of extracting additional money from the petitioner. It is submitted that the trial Court ignored the material on record, including the sale deed, the alleged agreement, the cheques and affidavits, and proceeded to allow the amendment contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of amendments. The petitioner contends that er suffers from patent illegality and liable to be set aside. The trial Court, while allowing the application, considered the nature of the amendment sought and held that it was necessary for determining the real ther observed that the suit is at an initial stage and the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit. The court also noted that merits of the claim are not to be examined at the stage of deciding an amendment application, and allowed the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated before this Court that the amendment permitted by the trial Court amounts to allowing the respondent to introduce an entirely fresh cause of action which did not find mention in the is argued that such an amendment is impermissible in law, that the facts sought to be introduced are afterthoughts, and that permitting the respondent to amend the plaint would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, e consideration. The petitioner contends that the - e of the petitioner that the plaintiff had suppressed these material facts at the time of filing the suit and has now, by moving the application for amendment, attempted to set up a which was never referred to in the registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, the amendment is mala fide and is intended only to raise a new story with the object of ourt ignored the material on record, including the sale deed, the alleged agreement, the cheques and affidavits, and proceeded to allow the amendment contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of amendments. The petitioner contends that The trial Court, while allowing the application, considered the nature of the amendment sought and held that it was necessary for determining the real ther observed that the suit is at an initial stage and the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit. The court also noted that merits of the claim are not to be examined at the stage of Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated before this Court that the amendment permitted by the trial Court amounts to allowing the respondent to introduce an entirely fresh cause of action which did not find mention in the is argued that such an amendment is impermissible in law, that the facts sought to be introduced are afterthoughts, and that permitting the respondent to amend the plaint would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, e consideration. The petitioner contends that the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.05 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8041-2025 (O&M) trial Court misdirected itself by failing to appreciate the documentary evidence placed on record and by exercising its discretion irregularly. 5. Since the question involved relates only to the interlocutory order passed in the course of trial, and the matter turns solely on the applicability of the principles governing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, no notice was considered necessary to be issued to the respondent, parti because the matter is short and relates to the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the trial Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made interference in the impugned order. The amendment sought through the application before the trial Court relates to facts already forming part of the broader transaction between the parties and appears to have been allowed to enable proper adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court correctly noted that the suit is at an initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who shall have ample opportunity to rebut the amended pleadings by filing an additional written statement and by l new story or a new cause of action is not tenable at this stage, as the scope of scrutiny while considering an amendment is limited, and the genuineness or correctness of the facts sought to be preliminary stage. The discretion exercised by the trial Court appears proper and in consonance with the settled principles that amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should ordinarily be trial has not progressed and the nature of the suit is not fundamentally altered. (O&M) trial Court misdirected itself by failing to appreciate the documentary evidence placed on record and by exercising its discretion irregularly. Since the question involved relates only to the interlocutory order passed in the course of trial, and the matter turns solely on the applicability of the principles governing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, no notice was considered necessary to be issued to the respondent, parti because the matter is short and relates to the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the trial Court. Having heard learned counsel for the record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made interference in the impugned order. The amendment sought through the application before the trial Court relates to facts already forming part of the broader transaction between the parties and appears to have been allowed to enable proper tion of the dispute. The trial Court correctly noted that the suit is at an initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who shall have ample opportunity to rebut the amended pleadings by filing an additional written statement and by leading evidence. The objection that the amendment introduces a new story or a new cause of action is not tenable at this stage, as the scope of scrutiny while considering an amendment is limited, and the genuineness or correctness of the facts sought to be added cannot be adjudicated at this preliminary stage. The discretion exercised by the trial Court appears proper and in consonance with the settled principles that amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should ordinarily be trial has not progressed and the nature of the suit is not fundamentally altered. -3- trial Court misdirected itself by failing to appreciate the documentary evidence placed on record and by exercising its discretion irregularly. Since the question involved relates only to the correctness of an interlocutory order passed in the course of trial, and the matter turns solely on the applicability of the principles governing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, no notice was considered necessary to be issued to the respondent, particularly because the matter is short and relates to the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction for the petitioner and after perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. The amendment sought through the application before the trial Court relates to facts already forming part of the broader transaction between the parties and appears to have been allowed to enable proper tion of the dispute. The trial Court correctly noted that the suit is at an initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who shall have ample opportunity to rebut the amended pleadings by filing an additional written eading evidence. The objection that the amendment introduces a new story or a new cause of action is not tenable at this stage, as the scope of scrutiny while considering an amendment is limited, and the genuineness or added cannot be adjudicated at this preliminary stage. The discretion exercised by the trial Court appears proper and in consonance with the settled principles that amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should ordinarily be allowed, particularly when the trial has not progressed and the nature of the suit is not fundamentally altered. - trial Court misdirected itself by failing to appreciate the documentary evidence correctness of an interlocutory order passed in the course of trial, and the matter turns solely on the applicability of the principles governing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, cularly because the matter is short and relates to the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction and after perusing the out for interference in the impugned order. The amendment sought through the application before the trial Court relates to facts already forming part of the broader transaction between the parties and appears to have been allowed to enable proper tion of the dispute. The trial Court correctly noted that the suit is at an initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who shall have ample opportunity to rebut the amended pleadings by filing an additional written eading evidence. The objection that the amendment introduces a new story or a new cause of action is not tenable at this stage, as the scope of scrutiny while considering an amendment is limited, and the genuineness or added cannot be adjudicated at this preliminary stage. The discretion exercised by the trial Court appears proper and in consonance with the settled principles that amendments necessary for determining allowed, particularly when the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.05 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8041-2025 (O&M) 7. To my mind, the impugned order does not reflect any perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Ar the Constitution of India. The trial Court has acted within its jurisdiction and has exercised its discretion judiciously. The apprehension of the petitioner that the amendment will prejudice his case is unfounded, as all rights and remedies available to him in law remain open, including the right to contest the amended pleadings on merits. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The dismissed. 9. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter, which shall remain open before the trial Court to be adjudicated in accordance with law. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. December 05, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) To my mind, the impugned order does not reflect any perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Ar the Constitution of India. The trial Court has acted within its jurisdiction and has exercised its discretion judiciously. The apprehension of the petitioner that the amendment will prejudice his case is unfounded, as all rights and remedies vailable to him in law remain open, including the right to contest the amended pleadings on merits. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The present Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter, which shall remain open before the trial Court to be adjudicated in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 ( Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- To my mind, the impugned order does not reflect any perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court has acted within its jurisdiction and has exercised its discretion judiciously. The apprehension of the petitioner that the amendment will prejudice his case is unfounded, as all rights and remedies vailable to him in law remain open, including the right to contest the amended In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to present revision petition is accordingly Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter, which shall remain open before the trial Court to be Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - To my mind, the impugned order does not reflect any perversity, ticle 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court has acted within its jurisdiction and has exercised its discretion judiciously. The apprehension of the petitioner that the amendment will prejudice his case is unfounded, as all rights and remedies vailable to him in law remain open, including the right to contest the amended In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to revision petition is accordingly Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter, which shall remain open before the trial Court to be TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.05 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document