CR-7928 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 112 Chajju Singh and others Chuhar Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: SUVIR SEHGAL J. 1. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moonak, whereby an application filed un written statement has been declined, petitioners approached this Court by way of instant revision petition. 2. submits that the legal technicalities. By way of proposed amendment, they intended to plead they are in possession of the suit property since May, 1969 and as their possession is continuous, open and hostile, they have 7928-2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Chajju Singh and others Vs. Chuhar Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Narinder Kumar Awasthi, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. SUVIR SEHGAL J. Aggrieved of order dated 23.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moonak, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of the written statement has been declined, petitioners approached this Court by way of instant revision petition. Mr. Narinder Kumar Awasthi, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are semi-literate and are not aware of the legal technicalities. By way of proposed amendment, they intended to plead they are in possession of the suit property since May, 1969 and as their possession is continuous, open and hostile, they have -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7928-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2025 … Petitioners … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Narinder Kumar Awasthi, Advocate Aggrieved of order dated 23.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moonak, whereby an der Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of the written statement has been declined, petitioners-defendants have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition. Mr. Narinder Kumar Awasthi, counsel for the petitioner literate and are not aware of the legal technicalities. By way of proposed amendment, they intended to plead they are in possession of the suit property since May, 1969 and as their possession is continuous, open and hostile, they have become Aggrieved of order dated 23.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moonak, whereby an der Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of the defendants have Mr. Narinder Kumar Awasthi, counsel for the petitioner literate and are not aware of the legal technicalities. By way of proposed amendment, they intended to plead they are in possession of the suit property since May, 1969 and become Pooja Saini 2025.07.28 11:20 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-7928 owners by way of adverse possession. He states that an objection has already been taken in the written statement originally filed and amendment is being carried out to clarify the position. It is his argument that without examining the nature of pr trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that it would delay the proceedings. 3. 4. his submissions besides examining petition. 5. Annexure P 8 Marlas in Village Amirgarh, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur. It has been pleaded that have shown themselves to be the owners in the revenue records and are refusing to hand back the possession of the suit land. Upon being served, suit is being contested by the defendants by filing a wri statement, Annexure P lawful and peaceful possession of the suit land without any interference and that their possession is continuous to the knowledge of the plaintiff for the last over 30 years. Written s by the defendants on 02.12.2015 and on the basis of the pleadings of 7928-2018 (O&M) owners by way of adverse possession. He states that an objection has already been taken in the written statement originally filed and amendment is being carried out to clarify the position. It is his argument that without examining the nature of pr trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that it would delay the proceedings. Despite service, respondent is unrepresented. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and considered his submissions besides examining the documents appended with the petition. Respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for possession, Annexure P-1, on the basis of ownership of land measuring 4 Kanals 8 Marlas in Village Amirgarh, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur. It has been pleaded that in collusion with the revenue authorities, defendants have shown themselves to be the owners in the revenue records and are refusing to hand back the possession of the suit land. Upon being served, suit is being contested by the defendants by filing a wri statement, Annexure P-2, wherein they have stated that they are in lawful and peaceful possession of the suit land without any interference and that their possession is continuous to the knowledge of the plaintiff for the last over 30 years. Written s by the defendants on 02.12.2015 and on the basis of the pleadings of -2- owners by way of adverse possession. He states that an objection has already been taken in the written statement originally filed and amendment is being carried out to clarify the position. It is his argument that without examining the nature of proposed alteration, trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that it would Despite service, respondent is unrepresented. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and considered the documents appended with the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession, 1, on the basis of ownership of land measuring 4 Kanals 8 Marlas in Village Amirgarh, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur. It has in collusion with the revenue authorities, defendants have shown themselves to be the owners in the revenue records and are refusing to hand back the possession of the suit land. Upon being served, suit is being contested by the defendants by filing a written 2, wherein they have stated that they are in lawful and peaceful possession of the suit land without any interference and that their possession is continuous to the knowledge of the plaintiff for the last over 30 years. Written statement was filed by the defendants on 02.12.2015 and on the basis of the pleadings of owners by way of adverse possession. He states that an objection has already been taken in the written statement originally filed and amendment is being carried out to clarify the position. It is his oposed alteration, trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that it would I have heard counsel for the petitioners and considered the documents appended with the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession, 1, on the basis of ownership of land measuring 4 Kanals 8 Marlas in Village Amirgarh, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur. It has in collusion with the revenue authorities, defendants have shown themselves to be the owners in the revenue records and are refusing to hand back the possession of the suit land. Upon being tten 2, wherein they have stated that they are in lawful and peaceful possession of the suit land without any interference and that their possession is continuous to the knowledge tatement was filed by the defendants on 02.12.2015 and on the basis of the pleadings of Pooja Saini 2025.07.28 11:20 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-7928 the parties, trial Court framed issues. Plaintiff tendered his affidavit and was cross P-3, for permission t defendant on order impugned herein. 6. pleadings cannot be permitted in normal routine. Proviso Rule 17 CPC, provides as under: 7. (2009) 2 SCC 409, couched in a mandatory terms. Court application for amendment is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor conclusion that inspite of due diligence a party could not have raised the matter before the commence is satisfied, application for amendment cannot be acceded to. In Basavaraj Versus Indira and others (2024) 3 SCC 705 Court has observed that amendment of the pleadings is not a matter of 7928-2018 (O&M) the parties, trial Court framed issues. Plaintiff tendered his affidavit and was cross-examined on 14.12.2018 and application, Annexure 3, for permission to amend the written statement, was filed by the defendant on the same day, which after contest has been rejected vide order impugned herein. After the commencement of the trial, amendment to the pleadings cannot be permitted in normal routine. Proviso Rule 17 CPC, provides as under:- “Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.” In Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another (2009) 2 SCC 409,Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proviso is couched in a mandatory terms. Court application for amendment is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefore are satisfied viz that Court must come to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence a party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. Unless this condition is satisfied, application for amendment cannot be acceded to. In Basavaraj Versus Indira and others (2024) 3 SCC 705 Court has observed that amendment of the pleadings is not a matter of -3- the parties, trial Court framed issues. Plaintiff tendered his affidavit examined on 14.12.2018 and application, Annexure o amend the written statement, was filed by the which after contest has been rejected vide After the commencement of the trial, amendment to the pleadings cannot be permitted in normal routine. Proviso to Order 6 Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.” In Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proviso is couched in a mandatory terms. Court’s jurisdiction to allow an application for amendment is taken away unless the conditions are satisfied viz that Court must come to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence a party could not have raised ment of the trial. Unless this condition is satisfied, application for amendment cannot be acceded to. In Basavaraj Versus Indira and others (2024) 3 SCC 705, Supreme Court has observed that amendment of the pleadings is not a matter of the parties, trial Court framed issues. Plaintiff tendered his affidavit examined on 14.12.2018 and application, Annexure o amend the written statement, was filed by the which after contest has been rejected vide After the commencement of the trial, amendment to the to Order 6 Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the In Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proviso is ’s jurisdiction to allow an application for amendment is taken away unless the conditions are satisfied viz that Court must come to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence a party could not have raised ment of the trial. Unless this condition is satisfied, application for amendment cannot be acceded to. In , Supreme Court has observed that amendment of the pleadings is not a matter of Pooja Saini 2025.07.28 11:20 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-7928 right and burden li commencement of trial to show that despite due diligence, such an amendment could not be sought earlier. The plea of oversight cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings when all the f 8. that issues were framed by the trial Court. Plaintiff was leading evidence and had examined himself as a witness when application, Annexure P ground given in the application is that the legal aspects of the case. They claim that their counsel did not guide them and it was only when they engaged another counsel that they became aware of the lacuna in the written statement. In the opinion of this Court, this does not constitute a sufficient ground for permitting the amendment, which is not necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Peti failed to show that they have exercised due care and diligence or that for reasons beyond their control, they could not plead the legal aspect in the original written statement. Petitioners intend to introduce a new plea in the written statem an additional issue. This is impermissible and would undoubtedly result in the delay of the conclusion of the trial. This Court does not 7928-2018 (O&M) right and burden lies on the party seeking amendment after the commencement of trial to show that despite due diligence, such an amendment could not be sought earlier. The plea of oversight cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings when all the facts were to the knowledge of the party. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that issues were framed by the trial Court. Plaintiff was leading evidence and had examined himself as a witness when application, Annexure P-3, for alteration of the written statement was filed. Sole ground given in the application is that the legal aspects of the case. They claim that their counsel did not guide them and it was only when they engaged another counsel that became aware of the lacuna in the written statement. In the opinion of this Court, this does not constitute a sufficient ground for permitting the amendment, which is not necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Peti failed to show that they have exercised due care and diligence or that for reasons beyond their control, they could not plead the legal aspect in the original written statement. Petitioners intend to introduce a new plea in the written statement, which would necessitate the framing of an additional issue. This is impermissible and would undoubtedly result in the delay of the conclusion of the trial. This Court does not -4- es on the party seeking amendment after the commencement of trial to show that despite due diligence, such an amendment could not be sought earlier. The plea of oversight cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings acts were to the knowledge of the party. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that issues were framed by the trial Court. Plaintiff was leading evidence and had examined himself as a witness when application, ration of the written statement was filed. Sole ground given in the application is that defendants were not aware of the legal aspects of the case. They claim that their counsel did not guide them and it was only when they engaged another counsel that became aware of the lacuna in the written statement. In the opinion of this Court, this does not constitute a sufficient ground for permitting the amendment, which is not necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Petitioners have failed to show that they have exercised due care and diligence or that for reasons beyond their control, they could not plead the legal aspect in the original written statement. Petitioners intend to introduce a new ent, which would necessitate the framing of an additional issue. This is impermissible and would undoubtedly result in the delay of the conclusion of the trial. This Court does not es on the party seeking amendment after the commencement of trial to show that despite due diligence, such an amendment could not be sought earlier. The plea of oversight cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that issues were framed by the trial Court. Plaintiff was leading evidence and had examined himself as a witness when application, ration of the written statement was filed. Sole were not aware of the legal aspects of the case. They claim that their counsel did not guide them and it was only when they engaged another counsel that became aware of the lacuna in the written statement. In the opinion of this Court, this does not constitute a sufficient ground for permitting the amendment, which is not necessary for determining the tioners have failed to show that they have exercised due care and diligence or that for reasons beyond their control, they could not plead the legal aspect in the original written statement. Petitioners intend to introduce a new ent, which would necessitate the framing of an additional issue. This is impermissible and would undoubtedly result in the delay of the conclusion of the trial. This Court does not Pooja Saini 2025.07.28 11:20 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-7928 find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court, which does not call for any interference. 9. as to costs. 10. 15.07.2025 pooja saini 7928-2018 (O&M) find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court, hich does not call for any interference. Petition sans merit and is dismissed though with no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications also stand dispose 15.07.2025 pooja saini Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -5- find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court, hich does not call for any interference. Petition sans merit and is dismissed though with no order Miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court, Petition sans merit and is dismissed though with no order Pooja Saini 2025.07.28 11:20 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment