IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 CR No.3573 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.07.2025 Anand Rathee @ Aanand …Petitioner V/s Superintendent of Post Office, Sonipat Division …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The instant revision petition assails the order dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ganaur, vide which the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Or- der 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) for the amendment of plaint was allowed. 2. A suit for recovery of Rs.65,87,428/- (Annexure P-1) was filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant, who had been posted as a Postal Assistant in the Head Post Office at Sonepat. The allegation was that he had embezzled the said amount. It was also stated in the suit that the matter was being enquired into and subsequently, if more embezzlement was found, the plaint would be accordingly amended. 3. An application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-6) was moved seeking amendment of the plaint. The case set up was that an addi- tional fraud of Rs.53,03,870/- had been detected, which had been committed by the defendant in the funds of the post office. Under the circumstances, the requisite amendment was sought to be made in the plaint and the total amount sought to be recovered was stated to be Rs.1,18,91,298/-. MANOJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -2- 4. The application was opposed by way of reply (Annexure P-7), in which the averments made were denied. It was averred that the application was not maintainable as it sought to introduce a time barred relief. It was averred that the suit had been filed on 15.03.2019, whereas the application had been filed on 29.11.2022. Other averments were also denied. 5. By way of the impugned order, the application was allowed, lead- ing to the filing of the present revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper-book. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order is not sustainable. He submits that the suit was initially insti- tuted on 15.03.2019 and the enquiry which was stated to be pending earlier concluded on 08.01.2021. He submits that issues were framed on 19.02.2021 i.e. after the enquiry concluded and, therefore, the application, if any, should have been moved before the framing of issues. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, since the trial had already commenced, the amendment could not have been allowed. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-plaintiff had failed to show that they had diligently pursued its case and, therefore, the application for amendment should not have been allowed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another V/s Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, 2006 SCC Online SC 1368; Chander Kanta Bansal V/s RAjinder Singh Anand (Civil Appeal No.1893 of 2008, decided on 11.03.2008) and Gurbhej Singh and others V/s Dalip Kaur and others (CR-229-2018, decided on 13.11.2019). MANOJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -3- 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper-book. 9. The suit (Annexure P-1) was instituted by the respondent-plain- tiff for recovery of Rs.65,87,428/-. The defendant was working as a Postal Assistant in Sonepat Post Office and had additional charge of Ganaur Post Of- fice from 29.06.2016. He had absented from duty w.e.f. 07.10.2016. The case set up was that from 29.05.2013 to 23.06.2016, he misused several closed ac- counts of various depositors that had been left active online and misappropri- ated/embezzled amounts from many accounts, the details of which were given in the plaint. An FIR was also got registered against the petitioner and his ac- count was also frozen. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it was averred that en- quiries were being carried out and till the filing of the suit, fraud of Rs.65,87,428/- had been detected but the department was still to arrive at a fi- nal figure; “5. That the Post Office Authorities are doing investigations against the defendant so far a fraud of Rs.6587428/- has been detected by the Postal Department, however, it is still to arrive at a final figure.” 10. Still further, in paragraph 9 of the plaint, it was averred that the matter was under investigation and the final figure of embezzlement was yet to be ascertained. It was averred that the plaintiff, therefore, reserved the right to amend the plaint accordingly; 9. That the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and juris- diction is Rs.6587428/- on which a requisite Court fee Rs.205820/- has been affixed on the plaint. As the matter is under investigation and a final figure of embez- zlement committed by the defendant is yet to be ascertained, therefore, the plaintiff reserves the right to amend the plaint accordingly and un- dertake to pay the advalorem Court fee accordingly when the settle- ment of all accounts is arrived upon.” MANOJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -4- 11. Concededly, after pleadings were completed, issues in the case were framed on 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-3). As per the petitioner, the en- quiry concluded on 08.01.2021. However, the enquiry report on record is Annexure P-5, which is of 14.09.2022. The articles of charges as regards misappropriate/embezzlement etc. were proved vide the said enquiry report. The application for amendment of the plaint was moved on 29.11.2022. No doubt, the application was not happily worded in as much as, it did not men- tion the date etc. of the enquiry report. As noticed above, the enquiry was concluded on 14.09.2022. Even if it is considered that it was of 08.01.2021, as stated by the petitioner, the claim sought to be introduced by way of amendment would not be time barred. It has to be borne in mind that some latitude has to be granted to Government agencies, which are normally found to be lacking in pleadings and diligence in pursuing their cases. However, since the suit was for recovery of a huge amount of public money, the trial Court did not commit any illegality in allowing the application since the inter- est of justice demanded the same. The trial Court rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022, decided on 01.09.2022) and other judgments on the subject while allowing the application. 12. I have perused the judgments, reliance upon which has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner. All judgments refer to the pro- viso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC holding that a party seeking amendment has to prove that inspite of due diligence, the matter could not have been raised be- fore the commencement of the trial. There is absolutely no dispute in the ra- tio of law laid down in the said judgments, which is also the statutory require- MANOJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -5- ment. However, for the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the said judgments would not come to the aid of the petitioner. 13. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the im- pugned order warranting interference. 14. That being so, I do not find any merit in the instant revision peti- tion and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE July 01, 2025 vcgarg Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document