CR-5433-2024 (O&M) 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Abhinav Sihag Anita Jyani CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Rajesh Narang Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present civil revision petition has petitioner/plaint Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘ plaint has been dismissed. BRIEF FACTS 2. Brief facts relevant to the present on 29.09.2020 seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit property and that the sale deed defendant is null and void on account of fraud and non consideration. The defendant, in her written statement, pleaded that the entire sale consideration had been paid and the cheque mentioned in t (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present civil revision petition has petitioner/plaintiff assailing the order dated 03.09.2024 Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘ plaint has been dismissed. BRIEF FACTS Brief facts relevant to the present 2020 seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit and that the sale deed dated 15.06.2020 defendant is null and void on account of fraud and non The defendant, in her written statement, pleaded that the entire sale consideration had been paid and the cheque mentioned in t -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5433-2024 (O&M) Decided on :- 13.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the iff assailing the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for amendment of the Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff filed a suit 2020 seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit dated 15.06.2020 executed in favour of the defendant is null and void on account of fraud and non-payment of sale The defendant, in her written statement, pleaded that the entire sale consideration had been paid and the cheque mentioned in the sale deed had been - been filed by the passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the he plaintiff filed a suit 2020 seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit executed in favour of the payment of sale The defendant, in her written statement, pleaded that the entire sale he sale deed had been TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5433-2024 (O&M) duly encashed in the plaintiff’s account.An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed by the defendant, which was dismissed on 15.01.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application dated Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief of recovery of sale consideration of relief of declaration was not granted.The learned trial court dismissed the application holding that the proposed amendment introduced a distinct and inconsistent cause of action, thereby changing the nature of the suit. Submissions Of Counsel 3. Learned counsel for the only clarificatory and seeks an alternative relief based on the same transaction. necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 4. Per contra of recovery of money is based on a separate cause of different from a declaratory suit amendment would alter the very character of the suit and c defendant. He further submits that t application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. Findings 6. It is a settled proposition of law that a relief for declaration and a relief for recovery of money are legally distinct in nature and character. A suit for declaration determines status or rights in respect of property, whereas a suit for recovery is a mon (O&M) duly encashed in the plaintiff’s account.An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed by the defendant, which was dismissed on Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application dated Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief of recovery of sale consideration of ₹30,35,000 with interest, in case the main relief of declaration was not granted.The learned trial court dismissed the tion holding that the proposed amendment introduced a distinct and inconsistent cause of action, thereby changing the nature of the suit. Submissions Of Counsel For The Parties Learned counsel for the petitioner ificatory and seeks an alternative relief based on the same transaction. necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that t of recovery of money is based on a separate cause of different from a declaratory suit. He further contends that a amendment would alter the very character of the suit and c defendant. He further submits that the trial court has rightly dismiss I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. t is a settled proposition of law that a relief for declaration and a relief for recovery of money are legally distinct in nature and character. A suit for declaration determines status or rights in respect of property, whereas a suit for recovery is a money claim requiring separate valuation, court fee, and evidence. -2- duly encashed in the plaintiff’s account.An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed by the defendant, which was dismissed on Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application dated 08.08.2024 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief ₹30,35,000 with interest, in case the main relief of declaration was not granted.The learned trial court dismissed the tion holding that the proposed amendment introduced a distinct and inconsistent cause of action, thereby changing the nature of the suit. petitioner contends that the amendment is ificatory and seeks an alternative relief based on the same transaction. It is , learned counsel for the respondent contends that the relief of recovery of money is based on a separate cause of action and is fundamentally . He further contends that allowing such an amendment would alter the very character of the suit and cause prejudice to the he trial court has rightly dismissed the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the t is a settled proposition of law that a relief for declaration and a relief for recovery of money are legally distinct in nature and character. A suit for declaration determines status or rights in respect of property, whereas a suit for ey claim requiring separate valuation, court fee, and evidence. - duly encashed in the plaintiff’s account.An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed by the defendant, which was dismissed on 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief ₹30,35,000 with interest, in case the main relief of declaration was not granted.The learned trial court dismissed the tion holding that the proposed amendment introduced a distinct and he amendment is It is he relief action and is fundamentally llowing such an ause prejudice to the ed the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the t is a settled proposition of law that a relief for declaration and a relief for recovery of money are legally distinct in nature and character. A suit for declaration determines status or rights in respect of property, whereas a suit for ey claim requiring separate valuation, court fee, and evidence. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5433-2024 (O&M) An alternative relief that is totally ancillary, cannot be introduced by way of amendment, as it would amount to substituting a new cause of acti 7. In the present case deed is null and void of ₹30,35,000 with interest consequential relief but a wholly different relief requiring distinct pleadings, valuation, court fee, and evidence. different from that of a declaratory suit; combining the two would amount to converting the suit into one of an entirely different character. relief of recovery cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment where it is founded on a cause of action that is distinct from, and inconsistent with, the original cause of action in the plaint. 8 There is no illegal by the learned trial Court. The same is, hereby, upheld and the present revision petition is dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also sta August 13, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) An alternative relief that is totally different from the main relief, and not merely cannot be introduced by way of amendment, as it would amount to substituting a new cause of action and changing the nature of the suit. In the present case the original suit is for a declaration that the sale deed is null and void. The proposed amendment seeks a money decree for recovery ₹30,35,000 with interest in the alternative. T consequential relief but a wholly different relief requiring distinct pleadings, valuation, court fee, and evidence. The cause of action for a recovery suit is different from that of a declaratory suit; combining the two would amount to nverting the suit into one of an entirely different character. relief of recovery cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment where it is founded on a cause of action that is distinct from, and inconsistent with, the l cause of action in the plaint. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated by the learned trial Court. The same is, hereby, upheld and the present revision dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also sta 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- different from the main relief, and not merely cannot be introduced by way of amendment, as it would amount to on and changing the nature of the suit. he original suit is for a declaration that the sale The proposed amendment seeks a money decree for recovery in the alternative. This is not an ancillary or consequential relief but a wholly different relief requiring distinct pleadings, The cause of action for a recovery suit is different from that of a declaratory suit; combining the two would amount to nverting the suit into one of an entirely different character. Thus, an alternative relief of recovery cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment where it is founded on a cause of action that is distinct from, and inconsistent with, the ity in the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned trial Court. The same is, hereby, upheld and the present revision Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - different from the main relief, and not merely cannot be introduced by way of amendment, as it would amount to he original suit is for a declaration that the sale The proposed amendment seeks a money decree for recovery an ancillary or consequential relief but a wholly different relief requiring distinct pleadings, The cause of action for a recovery suit is different from that of a declaratory suit; combining the two would amount to n alternative relief of recovery cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment where it is founded on a cause of action that is distinct from, and inconsistent with, the 03.09.2024 passed by the learned trial Court. The same is, hereby, upheld and the present revision TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document