IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (124) KESAR AND ANOTHER SANTRA DEVI AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Manish Mehta, for the petition **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL This Constitution of India which, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint was allowed at the stage of fin completion of evidence of both the parties in a suit for partition. After the parties concluded the evidence, respondents/plaintiffs came up with an application for amendment of the plaint on the grounds that when counsel was preparing arguments, it came to his notice that share of plaintiff No.2 Khewat No.225/198, Khatoni Mumkin manure pit, situated in Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Ateli having 2/15 share and the same was not property. The application was contested by petitioner by filing a written reply. After hearing the arguments, vide impugned order, the learned ACJ, Division, Narnaul has allowed the application. in Para Nos. 5 and 6, which his reproduced as under: “5. In the present case, from the perusal of the case file, it is clear that the 2/15 share of khewat no.255//198, khatoni no. 268, mustatil and killa no. 50//17/9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR- Date of Decision: KESAR AND ANOTHER Versus SANTRA DEVI AND OTHERS -.- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been filed Constitution of India has been directed against the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint was allowed at the stage of fin completion of evidence of both the parties in a suit for partition. After the parties concluded the evidence, respondents/plaintiffs came up with an application for amendment of the plaint on the grounds that when counsel was preparing rguments, it came to his notice that share of plaintiff No.2 Khewat No.225/198, Khatoni No.268, Kila No.50//17/9 area 0 Mumkin manure pit, situated in Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Ateli having 2/15 share and the same was not included. He wants to include the property in the suit property. The application was contested by petitioner by filing a written reply. After hearing the arguments, vide impugned order, the learned ACJ, Narnaul has allowed the application. The relevant portion of the order is in Para Nos. 5 and 6, which his reproduced as under: 5. In the present case, from the perusal of the case file, it is clear that the 2/15 share of khewat no.255//198, khatoni no. 268, mustatil and killa no. 50//17/9 measuring 0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -5776-2025 Date of Decision:-26.08.2025 … Petitioner ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL has been filed under Article 227 of the directed against the Order dated 13.05.2025, vide application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint was allowed at the stage of final arguments after completion of evidence of both the parties in a suit for partition. After the parties concluded the evidence, respondents/plaintiffs came up with an application for amendment of the plaint on the grounds that when counsel was preparing rguments, it came to his notice that share of plaintiff No.2, who is owner in No.268, Kila No.50//17/9 area 0-2 marla, Gair Mumkin manure pit, situated in Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Ateli having 2/15 share included. He wants to include the property in the suit property. The application was contested by petitioner by filing a written reply. After hearing the arguments, vide impugned order, the learned ACJ, Senior The relevant portion of the order is in Para Nos. 5 and 6, which his reproduced as under:- 5. In the present case, from the perusal of the case file, it is clear that the 2/15 share of khewat no.255//198, khatoni no. 268, mustatil measuring 0-2 marla gair mumkin which is Petitioner under Article 227 of the .2025, vide application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for al arguments after completion of evidence of both the parties in a suit for partition. After the parties concluded the evidence, respondents/plaintiffs came up with an application for amendment of the plaint on the grounds that when counsel was preparing who is owner in 2 marla, Gair Mumkin manure pit, situated in Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Ateli having 2/15 share included. He wants to include the property in the suit property. The application was contested by petitioner by filing a written reply. Senior The relevant portion of the order is 5. In the present case, from the perusal of the case file, it is clear that the 2/15 share of khewat no.255//198, khatoni no. 268, mustatil 2 marla gair mumkin which is SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.27 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document sought to be added in plaint by way of amendment is mentioned in jamabandi for the year 2013 possession by way of preliminary decree for partition and the law is settled that relief of partition as a suit for partial partition is bad in the eyes of law. Even though the written statement filed by defendant no.3 which was later adopted by defendant no partial partition, it is still the bounden duty of the plaintiff to ensure that his claim is valid in the eyes of law and the court shall ensure that all the necessary facts necessary for adjudication of real issue in controversy shall be br justice is done to the parties and the technical lapses do not fall in the way of delivery of justice, the court is inclined at allowing the present application to enable the plaintiff to bring all the facts are necessary to arrive at just decision of the case. 6. complacency on his part and despite the fact that the court has proceeded with the trial and the evidence of the defendant was also concluded, the applicant has moved the application at such a belated stage for clerical error. Therefore, the applicant is burdened with the cost of Rs. 1,000/ subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 500/ aid.Now, to come up on 04.07.2025 for filing amended 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed on the ground of oversight and relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court in 208 and by this Court in 2025:NCPHHC:84908 VI, application for amendment of the pleadings has been de the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in relied upon the law Singh and others vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 610, sought to be added in plaint by way of amendment is mentioned in jamabandi for the year 2013-14, Ex. P2. The present suit is that of possession by way of preliminary decree for partition and the law is settled that a person should mention all the properties to seek the relief of partition as a suit for partial partition is bad in the eyes of law. Even though the written statement filed by defendant no.3 which was later adopted by defendant no 5, 8 and 9 is silent on partial partition, it is still the bounden duty of the plaintiff to ensure that his claim is valid in the eyes of law and the court shall ensure that all the necessary facts necessary for adjudication of real issue in controversy shall be brought on file. Thus, in order to ensure that the justice is done to the parties and the technical lapses do not fall in the way of delivery of justice, the court is inclined at allowing the present application to enable the plaintiff to bring all the facts are necessary to arrive at just decision of the case. However, having said that the applicant has shown complacency on his part and despite the fact that the court has proceeded with the trial and the evidence of the defendant was also oncluded, the applicant has moved the application at such a belated stage for clerical error. Therefore, the applicant is burdened with the cost of Rs. 1,000/-. consequently, application at hand is allowed subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 500/ aid.Now, to come up on 04.07.2025 for filing amended Counsel for the petitioner submitted that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed on the ground of oversight and relied upon the Court in Basavaraj versus Indira and others, 2024 SCC online SC and by this Court in Mukesh Kumar versus Madhu Puri and Another, 2025:NCPHHC:84908, wherein by relying upon the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI, application for amendment of the pleadings has been de the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Basavaraj relied upon the law laid down by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Singh and others vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 610, sought to be added in plaint by way of amendment is mentioned in 14, Ex. P2. P2. The present suit is that of possession by way of preliminary decree for partition and the law is a person should mention all the properties to seek the relief of partition as a suit for partial partition is bad in the eyes of law. Even though the written statement filed by defendant no.3 which 5, 8 and 9 is silent on the aspect of partial partition, it is still the bounden duty of the plaintiff to ensure that his claim is valid in the eyes of law and the court shall ensure that all the necessary facts necessary for adjudication of real issue in ought on file. Thus, in order to ensure that the justice is done to the parties and the technical lapses do not fall in the way of delivery of justice, the court is inclined at allowing the present application to enable the plaintiff to bring all the facts on file which are necessary to arrive at just decision of the case. However, having said that the applicant has shown complacency on his part and despite the fact that the court has proceeded with the trial and the evidence of the defendant was also oncluded, the applicant has moved the application at such a belated stage for clerical error. Therefore, the applicant is burdened with the . consequently, application at hand is allowed subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 500/- to be deposited in legal aid.Now, to come up on 04.07.2025 for filing amended plaint.” Counsel for the petitioner submitted that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed on the ground of oversight and relied upon the law laid down asavaraj versus Indira and others, 2024 SCC online SC Mukesh Kumar versus Madhu Puri and Another, , wherein by relying upon the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI, application for amendment of the pleadings has been declined by relying upon asavaraj vs. Indira (supra). He further ordinate Bench of this Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 610, sought to be added in plaint by way of amendment is mentioned in 14, Ex. P2. The present suit is that of possession by way of preliminary decree for partition and the law is a person should mention all the properties to seek the relief of partition as a suit for partial partition is bad in the eyes of law. Even though the written statement filed by defendant no.3 which the aspect of partial partition, it is still the bounden duty of the plaintiff to ensure that his claim is valid in the eyes of law and the court shall ensure that all the necessary facts necessary for adjudication of real issue in ought on file. Thus, in order to ensure that the justice is done to the parties and the technical lapses do not fall in the way of delivery of justice, the court is inclined at allowing the present on file which However, having said that the applicant has shown complacency on his part and despite the fact that the court has proceeded with the trial and the evidence of the defendant was also oncluded, the applicant has moved the application at such a belated stage for clerical error. Therefore, the applicant is burdened with the . consequently, application at hand is allowed deposited in legal Counsel for the petitioner submitted that amendment of pleadings by asavaraj versus Indira and others, 2024 SCC online SC Mukesh Kumar versus Madhu Puri and Another, , wherein by relying upon the proviso to Rule 17 of Order clined by relying upon (supra). He further Narinder Singh and others vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 610, SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.27 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document wherein a partition suit hearing as in the present case and that application was with regard to leaving out the material facts due to computer printing error and the application was not allowed. 3. Now, amendment, the learned Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint in order to incorporate other property as subject matter of the suit, which was partition is barred on account of partial partition and in case, the respondents/plaintiffs would not have moved the application, then the suit would have been dismissed on the ground of partial partition given any substantial right to the petitioner as respondent/plaintiff could have filed fresh suit for partition after incorporating the property left out. This would have put the parties to much inconvenience and subjected them to litigation, so, considering the object of application for amendment of pleadings, allowed at a fag end of the trial, the case in hand is distinguishable from the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. Since, by allowing the application, vested right of the petitioner has been taken away and it has not changed the nature of the suit rather it would help the parties to settle the dispute in this round of litigation only and will save them from another round of litigation, so, I find illegality committed by the learned Additional Civil Judg Narnaul by exercising the jurisdiction no merit in the present revision petition and the same 26.08.2025 S. Pathania Whether reasoned / speaking? Whether reportable? partition suit, amendment was sought at the stage of rebuttal and final hearing as in the present case and that application was with regard to leaving out the material facts due to computer printing error and the application was not Now, considering the fact that by way of allowing the present amendment, the learned Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint in order to incorporate other property as subject matter of the suit, which was not there earlier. It is settled law that suit for partition is barred on account of partial partition and in case, the respondents/plaintiffs would not have moved the application, then the suit would have been dismissed on the ground of partial partition given any substantial right to the petitioner as respondent/plaintiff could have filed fresh suit for partition after incorporating the property left out. This would have put the parties to much inconvenience and subjected them to litigation, so, considering the object of application for amendment of pleadings, allowed at a fag end of the trial, the case in hand is distinguishable from the relied upon by the petitioner. Since, by allowing the application, vested right of the petitioner has been taken away and it has not changed the nature of the suit rather it would help the parties to settle the dispute in this round of litigation only and will save them from another round of litigation, so, I find illegality committed by the learned Additional Civil Judg Narnaul by exercising the jurisdiction vested in the learned Court, as such, finding the present revision petition and the same (VIRINDER AGGA Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No amendment was sought at the stage of rebuttal and final hearing as in the present case and that application was with regard to leaving out the material facts due to computer printing error and the application was not considering the fact that by way of allowing the present amendment, the learned Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint in order to incorporate other property as not there earlier. It is settled law that suit for partition is barred on account of partial partition and in case, the respondents/plaintiffs would not have moved the application, then the suit would have been dismissed on the ground of partial partition but that would not have given any substantial right to the petitioner as respondent/plaintiff could have filed fresh suit for partition after incorporating the property left out. This would have put the parties to much inconvenience and subjected them to another round of litigation, so, considering the object of application for amendment of pleadings, allowed at a fag end of the trial, the case in hand is distinguishable from the relied upon by the petitioner. Since, by allowing the application, vested right of the petitioner has been taken away and it has not changed the nature of the suit rather it would help the parties to settle the dispute in this round of litigation only and will save them from another round of litigation, so, I find illegality committed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, vested in the learned Court, as such, finding the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No amendment was sought at the stage of rebuttal and final hearing as in the present case and that application was with regard to leaving out the material facts due to computer printing error and the application was not considering the fact that by way of allowing the present amendment, the learned Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint in order to incorporate other property as not there earlier. It is settled law that suit for partition is barred on account of partial partition and in case, the respondents/plaintiffs would not have moved the application, then the suit would but that would not have given any substantial right to the petitioner as respondent/plaintiff could have filed fresh suit for partition after incorporating the property left out. This would have put another round of litigation, so, considering the object of application for amendment of pleadings, allowed at a fag end of the trial, the case in hand is distinguishable from the relied upon by the petitioner. Since, by allowing the application, no vested right of the petitioner has been taken away and it has not changed the nature of the suit rather it would help the parties to settle the dispute in this round of litigation only and will save them from another round of litigation, so, I find no e, Senior Division, vested in the learned Court, as such, finding SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.27 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document