CR-1308 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 116 Neeraj Devi Panwar Ravinder and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: SUVIR SEHGAL J. 1. whereby an application filed under amendment of the plaint has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition. 2. petitioner constructed a residential house 1308-2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Neeraj Devi Panwar Vs. Ravinder and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Vishal Sharma Haritw for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1 and LRs of respondent No.3 despite service. Mr. S. K. Tripathi, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 4. SUVIR SEHGAL J. Assailing order dated whereby an application filed under amendment of the plaint has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition. Mr.Vishal Sharma Hari petitioner purchased the suit plot vide sale deed dated 19.02.2007 constructed a residential house. He submits that as the dimensions of 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1308-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.04.2025 … Petitioner … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL wal, Advocate (through VC) None for respondent No.1 and LRs of respondent No.3 despite service. Mr. S. K. Tripathi, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 4. order dated 06.09.2021, Annexure P-4, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition. itwal, Advocate, submits that purchased the suit plot vide sale deed dated 19.02.2007 and He submits that as the dimensions of 1 4, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff has , Advocate, submits that and He submits that as the dimensions of CR-1308 the plot were erroneously mentioned in the sale deed, respondent No.1 tried to encroach upon the 15.04.2021 to the police, who did no for permanent injunction encroaching upon the suit plot. He asserts that there typographical error in the plaint inasmuch as it was mentioned that cause of action arose on 19.02.2007 instead of 15.04.202 correct this error, an application been erroneously rejected by the trial Court vide 3. No. 2 and 4 has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is trying to change the nature of the suit as well as the cause of action. It is his case that the original version, which cannot be permitted under the garb of amendment of plaint. 4. respective submissions besides examining the documents appended with the petition. 5. 1308-2022 (O&M) lot were erroneously mentioned in the sale deed, respondent No.1 tried to encroach upon the property. Petitioner 15.04.2021 to the police, who did not take any actio for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from encroaching upon the suit plot. He asserts that there typographical error in the plaint inasmuch as it was mentioned that cause of action arose on 19.02.2007 instead of 15.04.202 correct this error, an application for amendment been erroneously rejected by the trial Court vide Per contra, Mr. S. K. Tripathi, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 4 has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is trying to change the nature of the suit as well as the cause of action. It is his case that the petitioner is original version, which cannot be permitted under the garb of amendment of plaint. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions besides examining the documents appended the petition. Para 8 of the plaint filed by the petitioner reads as under: “8. That cause of action arose on 19.02.2007, when the plaintiff purchased the said plot from defendant No.2 and again on 15.0 defendants tried to encroach upon the said portion 2 lot were erroneously mentioned in the sale deed, respondent No.1 etitioner gave a complaint dated t take any action and filed a suit for restraining the respondents from encroaching upon the suit plot. He asserts that there was a typographical error in the plaint inasmuch as it was mentioned that cause of action arose on 19.02.2007 instead of 15.04.2021 and to for amendment was filed, which has been erroneously rejected by the trial Court vide the impugned order. Per contra, Mr. S. K. Tripathi, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 4 has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is trying to change the nature of the suit as well as the cause petitioner is trying to improve upon the original version, which cannot be permitted under the garb of I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions besides examining the documents appended Para 8 of the plaint filed by the petitioner reads as under:- That cause of action arose on 19.02.2007, when the plaintiff purchased the said plot from and again on 15.04.2021, defendants tried to encroach upon the said portion 2 lot were erroneously mentioned in the sale deed, respondent No.1 a complaint dated filed a suit for restraining the respondents from a typographical error in the plaint inasmuch as it was mentioned that 1 and to which has Per contra, Mr. S. K. Tripathi, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 4 has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is trying to change the nature of the suit as well as the cause improve upon the original version, which cannot be permitted under the garb of I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions besides examining the documents appended - CR-1308 6. amend the above averment by substituting it with the following paragraph. 7. amendment that there is a plaint, amendment. the suit nor does it change the cause of action. the petitioner on 16.04.2021 and upon being served, respondents filed their written statement as well as reply to the miscellaneous 1308-2022 (O&M) of the plot/house of the plaintiff the genuine request of the plaintiff and the cause of action is still subsisting. Hence, th By way of proposed amendment, petit amend the above averment by substituting it with the following paragraph. “8. That the plaintiff purchased the suit property on 19.02.2007 and the cause of action to file the suit arose on 15.04.2021 when defendants taking undue advantage of the (misprinted) dimensions in the registry of the plaintiff tried to encroach the house of the plaintiff and finally declined the genuine requests of the plaintiff. The cause of action is still subsisting as still the defendants, despite of complaints before police, did not stopped (sic) themselves in creating obstruction of the peaceful possession of the plaintiff’s property.” It is evident from the above reproduction of the proposed amendment that there is an inadvertent typographical mistake in the which the petitioner intends to correct by way of amendment. The proposed amendment neither changes the nature of the suit nor does it change the cause of action. the petitioner on 16.04.2021 and upon being served, respondents filed their written statement as well as reply to the miscellaneous 3 of the plaintiff and finally declined the genuine request of the plaintiff and the cause of action is still subsisting. Hence, this suit.” By way of proposed amendment, petitioner intends to amend the above averment by substituting it with the following That the plaintiff purchased the suit property on 19.02.2007 and the cause of action to file the suit arose on 15.04.2021 when defendants taking undue advantage dimensions in the registry of the plaintiff tried to encroach upon the red colour portion of the house of the plaintiff and finally declined the genuine of the plaintiff. The cause of action is still subsisting as still the defendants, despite of complaints before police, did not stopped (sic) themselves in creating obstruction of the peaceful possession of the plaintiff’s It is evident from the above reproduction of the proposed inadvertent typographical mistake in the tioner intends to correct by way of proposed he proposed amendment neither changes the nature of the suit nor does it change the cause of action. Suit was instituted by the petitioner on 16.04.2021 and upon being served, respondents filed their written statement as well as reply to the miscellaneous 3 ioner intends to amend the above averment by substituting it with the following That the plaintiff purchased the suit property on 19.02.2007 and the cause of action to file the suit arose on 15.04.2021 when defendants taking undue advantage dimensions in the registry of the the red colour portion of the house of the plaintiff and finally declined the genuine of the plaintiff. The cause of action is still fendants, despite of complaints before police, did not stopped (sic) themselves in creating obstruction of the peaceful possession of the plaintiff’s It is evident from the above reproduction of the proposed inadvertent typographical mistake in the proposed he proposed amendment neither changes the nature of Suit was instituted by the petitioner on 16.04.2021 and upon being served, respondents filed their written statement as well as reply to the miscellaneous CR-1308 application amendment has been moved by the interim orders, it have not been framed and the trial is yet to commence. Order 6 Rule 17 the application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment would enable the is necessary to determine the civil suit on Order 6 Rule 17 typographical or inadvertent mistake in the pla alternation approaching t clearly erred in disallowing the application. Impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. 8. plaint. Amend 05.05.2025. This wi the respondents. 04.04.2025 pooja saini Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable 1308-2022 (O&M) application along with a counter claim on 31.05.202 amendment has been moved by the petitioner on 20.07.202 the interim orders, it is cleared that the suit is at an initial stage have not been framed and the trial is yet to commence. rder 6 Rule 17 CPC, would not be a hindrance to the acceptance of the application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment would enable the Court to adjudicate the controversy between the parties and is necessary to determine the civil suit on er 6 Rule 17 CPC is to enable the parties to correct any typographical or inadvertent mistake in the pla alternation is brought about at an initial stage and there is no delay in approaching the Court for seeking the amendment. Trial Co clearly erred in disallowing the application. Impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. Petition is allowed. Petit plaint. Amended plaint be filed before the trial Court on or before 5.2025. This will be subject to payment of the respondents. .2025 pooja saini Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 4 along with a counter claim on 31.05.2021. Application for petitioner on 20.07.2021. From that the suit is at an initial stage, issues have not been framed and the trial is yet to commence. Proviso to would not be a hindrance to the acceptance of the application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment would ourt to adjudicate the controversy between the parties and is necessary to determine the civil suit on merits. The objective of is to enable the parties to correct any typographical or inadvertent mistake in the plaint provided such an ught about at an initial stage and there is no delay in for seeking the amendment. Trial Court has clearly erred in disallowing the application. Impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. Petition is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint be filed before the trial Court on or before payment of costs of Rs.2500/- to (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 4 1. Application for 1. From , issues Proviso to would not be a hindrance to the acceptance of the application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment would ourt to adjudicate the controversy between the parties and The objective of is to enable the parties to correct any int provided such an ught about at an initial stage and there is no delay in urt has clearly erred in disallowing the application. Impugned order, oner is permitted to amend the plaint be filed before the trial Court on or before to