CR-5368-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ravinder Singh Shubh Kumar CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya, (Annexure P (hereinafter referred to as amendment of the plaint has been allowed, despite the pendency of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the referred to as the ‘petitioner’) 2. The brief fa instituted a suit for recovery of 18% per annum application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for that the plaintiff had failed to affix ad valorem court fee on the claimed amount, rendering the suit liable to be dismissed. 3. During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiff moved an application under O (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : Ravinder Singh VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), (Annexure P-7) whereby the application filed by the (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed, despite the pendency of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the referred to as the ‘petitioner’) The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of ₹1,00,00,000/- 18% per annum as damages. The defendant entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to affix ad valorem court fee on the claimed amount, rendering the suit liable to be dismissed. During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5368-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 12.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed, despite the pendency of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant (hereinafter cts, as emerging from the record, are that the plaintiff - along with interest at the rate of as damages. The defendant entered appearance and filed an rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to affix ad valorem court fee on the claimed amount, During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiff moved an rder VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by - The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed, despite the pendency of an application petitioner/defendant (hereinafter cts, as emerging from the record, are that the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of as damages. The defendant entered appearance and filed an rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to affix ad valorem court fee on the claimed amount, During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiff moved an rder VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5368-2025 (O&M) substituting the amount of assessed by the Hon’ble Court.” The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, allowed the amendment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court committed a serious illegality in deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC prior to adjudicating the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is submitted tha 11 CPC, the plaint would have been rejected for want of proper court fee on the fixed claim of ₹1,00,00,000/ 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 6. I find no merit in the contention petitioner. There is no legal bar or absolute prohibition against deciding an application for am 11 CPC. On the contrary, the normal course would be to first consider and decide the amendment application, so that the pleadings, as finally settled, can then be tested on the parameters of Ord 7. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Subhash Narula application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and thereafter test the amended plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, if necessary. 8. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the pr case, once the amendment has been allowed, it is the amended plaint which would (O&M) substituting the amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- with the words “liquidated damages as assessed by the Hon’ble Court.” The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, allowed the amendment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court committed a serious illegality in deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC prior to adjudicating the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is submitted that, had the Court first decided the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the plaint would have been rejected for want of proper court fee on the ₹1,00,00,000/-. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through I find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the . There is no legal bar or absolute prohibition against deciding an application for amendment prior to deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. On the contrary, the normal course would be to first consider and decide the amendment application, so that the pleadings, as finally settled, can then be tested on the parameters of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dera Baba Bhumman Dr. Subhash Narula, wherein it was held that the trial Court should decide the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC before considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and thereafter test the amended plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, if necessary. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the pr case, once the amendment has been allowed, it is the amended plaint which would -2- with the words “liquidated damages as assessed by the Hon’ble Court.” The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court committed a serious illegality in deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC prior to adjudicating the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It t, had the Court first decided the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the plaint would have been rejected for want of proper court fee on the I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through raised by the learned counsel for the . There is no legal bar or absolute prohibition against deciding an endment prior to deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. On the contrary, the normal course would be to first consider and decide the amendment application, so that the pleadings, as finally settled, can then be er VII Rule 11 CPC. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of a Bhumman Shah Sangar Sarista , wherein it was held that the trial Court should decide the Order VI Rule 17 CPC before considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and thereafter test the amended plaint at the threshold Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the present case, once the amendment has been allowed, it is the amended plaint which would - with the words “liquidated damages as assessed by the Hon’ble Court.” The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court committed a serious illegality in deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC prior to adjudicating the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It t, had the Court first decided the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the plaint would have been rejected for want of proper court fee on the I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through raised by the learned counsel for the . There is no legal bar or absolute prohibition against deciding an endment prior to deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. On the contrary, the normal course would be to first consider and decide the amendment application, so that the pleadings, as finally settled, can then be Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of a Sangar Sarista v. , wherein it was held that the trial Court should decide the Order VI Rule 17 CPC before considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and thereafter test the amended plaint at the threshold esent case, once the amendment has been allowed, it is the amended plaint which would TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5368-2025 (O&M) be examined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The course adopted by the learned trial Court, therefore, suffers from no illegality or material irregularity. 9. In view of th P-7) is upheld. The revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 12, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) be examined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The course adopted by the learned trial Court, therefore, suffers from no illegality or material irregularity. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 is upheld. The revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- be examined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The course adopted by the learned trial Court, therefore, suffers from no illegality or material irregularity. e above, the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure is upheld. The revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - be examined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The course adopted by the learned (Annexure TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document