IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 118 CR-5868-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:09.02.2026 Arvinder Kaur …..Pe11oner Vs. Nirmal Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Pooja Rana, Advocate for Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The peoner herein is one of the plainffs in civil suit bearing No. CS-319-2021 tled “Amarjit Kaur and others versus Nirmal Singh and others”, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala. She has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby an applicaon filed by the defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the wri9en statement was allowed, subject to payment of costs. 2. The suit has been instuted by the peoner along with two other plainffs seeking a decree of permanent injuncon restraining the defendants from interfering in their alleged possession over the suit land, which is claimed to be owned by the plainffs. The defendants contested the suit by asserng that their father, Jagir Singh, had purchased land measuring 10 Kanal from a co-sharer, Soma Devi, and that mutaon No.2194 dated 17.10.2019 had been sanconed in this regard. It was further pleaded that upon the death of Jagir Singh, mutaon of inheritance was sanconed in favour of the defendants on 17.10.2019. According to the defendants, these material facts could not be incorporated in the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.10 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5868-2025 (O&M) -2- original wri9en statement inadvertently and, therefore, they sought permission to place the same on record by way of amendment. 3. The learned trial Court, while nocing that issues had already been framed, also recorded that the case was sll at an inial stage inasmuch as the evidence of the plainffs was yet to commence. The trial Court further observed that the facts sought to be introduced by way of amendment were directly related to the tle and possession of the suit land and were, therefore, relevant and crucial for the effecve adjudicaon of the controversy. At the same me, the trial Court also took note of the negligence on the part of the defendants in not disclosing these facts at the first instance and, consequently, allowed the amendment subject to payment of costs of ₹2,500/-, to be deposited in DLSA. 4. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the peoner has contended that once the trial had commenced, the amendment of pleadings could not have been permi9ed in view of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 5. The contenon does not merit acceptance. It is well se9led that though the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC places a restricon on allowing amendments a@er commencement of trial, the embargo is not absolute. The Court retains the discreon to permit amendment, if it is sasfied that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the ma9er before the commencement of trial, and if such amendment is necessary for determining the real quesons in controversy between the pares. The underlying object of the proviso is not to punish inadvertence or procedural lapses, but to ensure that jusce is done on the basis of complete and correct pleadings. 6. In the present case, the trial Court has categorically recorded a finding that the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the suit, nor does it introduce a new or inconsistent defence. The amendment NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.10 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5868-2025 (O&M) -3- merely seeks to place on record facts relang to purchase of land and sancon of mutaons, which go to the root of the dispute regarding tle and possession. Denial of such amendment would result in incomplete adjudicaon and may give rise to mulplicity of proceedings. The trial Court has also balanced the equies by compensang the plainffs through imposion of costs. 7. This Court does not find that the discreon exercised by the trial Court suffers from any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity. The order impugned reflects a judicious exercise of discreon aimed at advancing the cause of jusce rather than defeang it on technical grounds. Finding no merit in the present peon, the same is hereby dismissed. However, cost of ₹ 2500/- directed by trial court to be deposited in DLSA, shall be payable to plainffs. Impugned order is modified only to this extent. 8. All the pending miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 09, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.10 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document