IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 Hardev Singh Gaay Sewa Samiti CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar in Civil Suit bearing No.96715 titled as “Gaay Sewa Samiti Vs. Hardev Singh” vide which the learned Court dismissed the application (Annexure P3) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC as well as under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC (Annexure P3). 2. the petitioner that the present petition is not pressed qua relief sought under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC only that application of the Section 151 CPC for amendment of submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on account inadvertent error, the date of Will could not be mentioned in the original written statement. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Hardev Singh Vs. Gaay Sewa Samiti HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the respondent. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar in Civil Suit bearing No.96715 titled as “Gaay Sewa Samiti Vs. Hardev Singh” vide which the learned Court dismissed the application (Annexure P3) filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC as well as under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC; with a further prayer for allowing the (Annexure P3). At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is not pressed qua relief sought under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issue; and application of the petitioner under order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement, be allowed submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on account advertent error, the date of Will could not be mentioned in the original written statement. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5744-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 20.05.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate , Advocate Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar in Civil Suit bearing No.96715-2013 dated 26.07.2012 titled as “Gaay Sewa Samiti Vs. Hardev Singh” vide which the learned Court filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC as well as under prayer for allowing the said application it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is not pressed qua relief sought for framing of additional issue; and prayer is under order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with written statement, be allowed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of an advertent error, the date of Will could not be mentioned in the original written statement. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had 4 Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior 2 titled as “Gaay Sewa Samiti Vs. Hardev Singh” vide which the learned Court filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC as well as under application it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is not pressed qua relief sought prayer is under order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with . It is of an advertent error, the date of Will could not be mentioned in the original written statement. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had SUNENA 2025.05.22 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document pleaded existence of the Will in the written statement yet only the date thereof could not be mentio incorporating date of Will in the written statement will not change the nature of the suit Petitioner even does not wish to lead any evidence in this regard has already been produced by the petitioner in evidence. prayed that the present petition be permitted to make the innocuous date of Will in the written statement. 3. the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is habitual of filing one application after another. This is the third application for amendment filed by the petitioner. application has prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. 5. the case file in great detail. 6. had filed a suit injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering in the management, control and affairs of the plaintiff/Society and from encroaching upon the premises of the Gaushala Complex. Written Statement dated said suit. Issues were framed in the matter parties led their evidence arguments, the petitioner filed the present application dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P3) permission to incorporate the date of Will in Para 3 of the written pleaded existence of the Will in the written statement yet only the date thereof could not be mentioned. It is submitted that merely in incorporating date of Will in the written statement will not change the nature of the suit; and the same will cause no prejudice to the parties. Petitioner even does not wish to lead any evidence in this regard has already been produced by the petitioner in evidence. prayed that the present petition be allowed, permitted to make the innocuous technical amendment of incorporating date of Will in the written statement. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is habitual of filing one application after another. This is the third application for amendment filed by the petitioner. application has been filed at the time of final prayed that the present petition be dismissed. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the the case file in great detail. Brief facts of the case are that the had filed a suit on dated 25.07.2012 (Annexure P1) injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering in the management, control and affairs of the plaintiff/Society and from encroaching upon the premises of the Gaushala Complex. Written dated 25.1.2013 (Annexure P2) w ssues were framed in the matter parties led their evidence. When the matter was at stage of final the petitioner filed the present application dated 14.09.2022 3) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC whereby the petitioner sought permission to incorporate the date of Will in Para 3 of the written pleaded existence of the Will in the written statement yet only the date ned. It is submitted that merely in incorporating date of Will in the written statement will not change the cause no prejudice to the parties. Petitioner even does not wish to lead any evidence in this regard as the Will has already been produced by the petitioner in evidence. It is accordingly allowed, and the petitioner be technical amendment of incorporating Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is habitual of filing one application after another. This is the third application for amendment filed by the petitioner. Moreover, present been filed at the time of final arguments. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be dismissed. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. rned counsel for the parties and perused Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent dated 25.07.2012 (Annexure P1) for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering in the management, control and affairs of the plaintiff/Society and from encroaching upon the premises of the Gaushala Complex. Written (Annexure P2) was filed by the petitioner to the ssues were framed in the matter on 27.04.2015; whereupon matter was at stage of final the petitioner filed the present application dated 14.09.2022 Order 6 Rule 17 CPC whereby the petitioner sought permission to incorporate the date of Will in Para 3 of the written 4 pleaded existence of the Will in the written statement yet only the date ned. It is submitted that merely in incorporating date of Will in the written statement will not change the cause no prejudice to the parties. ll It is accordingly and the petitioner be technical amendment of incorporating Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is habitual of filing one application after another. This is the third reover, present arguments. It is accordingly sed plaintiff/respondent for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering in the management, control and affairs of the plaintiff/Society and from encroaching upon the premises of the Gaushala Complex. Written as filed by the petitioner to the whereupon matter was at stage of final the petitioner filed the present application dated 14.09.2022 Order 6 Rule 17 CPC whereby the petitioner sought permission to incorporate the date of Will in Para 3 of the written SUNENA 2025.05.22 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document statement as the date of Will was written statement (Annexure P2). The Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issue. above, learned counsel for the petitioner has petition is not pressed qua relief under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. 7. specifically stated in Para 3 that testator Mahant Babu Ram had executed a Will in his favour; and after his death, the petitioner is managing the affairs of Gaushala Complex petitioner has already contentions. The petitioner has even led evidence regarding execution of Will dated 01.09.2012. The petitioner has also examined the attesting witnesses of the said alleged Will positive evidence in support of his contentions. 8. application is the third application for amendment filed by the petitioner; and the second application for injunction was already framed by the learned trial Court on two previous occasions. Needless to say, if the plaintiff had sought relief of declaration on the basis of disputed Will or to challenge the validity of the W amendment sought by the petitioner may have been necessary. not clear as to what purpose will be served amend his written statement incorporate the date of Will. drawn in this circumstance is that it is a concerted effort on part of the petitioner to delay the trial. 9. permanent injunction management and affairs of the plaintiff statement as the date of Will was ‘inadvertently written statement (Annexure P2). The petitioner also sought relief under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issue. above, learned counsel for the petitioner has petition is not pressed qua relief under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. In the written statement (Annexure P2) specifically stated in Para 3 that testator Mahant Babu Ram had executed a Will in his favour; and after his death, the petitioner is managing the affairs of Gaushala Complex. Admittedly, not only the petitioner has already led evidence in support of their respective . The petitioner has even led evidence regarding execution of Will dated 01.09.2012. The petitioner has also examined the attesting witnesses of the said alleged Will. As such, the petitioner has already led positive evidence in support of his contentions. Furthermore, it cannot be ignored that the present is the third application for amendment filed by the petitioner; and the second application for framing the issue regarding relief of injunction was already framed by the learned trial Court on two previous occasions. Needless to say, if the plaintiff had sought relief of declaration on the basis of disputed Will or to challenge the validity of the W amendment sought by the petitioner may have been necessary. not clear as to what purpose will be served amend his written statement at this belated stage incorporate the date of Will. The only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn in this circumstance is that it is a concerted effort on part of the petitioner to delay the trial. Furthermore, given the nature of suit permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in the management and affairs of the plaintiff-Society, and from encroaching upon inadvertently’ not mentioned in the petitioner also sought relief under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issue. However, as noted above, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the present petition is not pressed qua relief under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. ten statement (Annexure P2) petitioner has specifically stated in Para 3 that testator Mahant Babu Ram had executed a Will in his favour; and after his death, the petitioner is managing the affairs . Admittedly, not only the respondent but also the evidence in support of their respective . The petitioner has even led evidence regarding execution of Will dated 01.09.2012. The petitioner has also examined the attesting . As such, the petitioner has already led positive evidence in support of his contentions. Furthermore, it cannot be ignored that the present is the third application for amendment filed by the petitioner; framing the issue regarding relief of injunction was already framed by the learned trial Court on two previous occasions. Needless to say, if the plaintiff had sought relief of declaration on the basis of disputed Will or to challenge the validity of the Will, the amendment sought by the petitioner may have been necessary. Thus, it is not clear as to what purpose will be served if petitioner is permitted to at this belated stage only in order to only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn in this circumstance is that it is a concerted effort on part of the the nature of suit viz prayer is for restraining the petitioner from interfering in the Society, and from encroaching upon 4 not mentioned in the petitioner also sought relief under However, as noted that the present petitioner has specifically stated in Para 3 that testator Mahant Babu Ram had executed a Will in his favour; and after his death, the petitioner is managing the affairs ut also the evidence in support of their respective . The petitioner has even led evidence regarding execution of Will dated 01.09.2012. The petitioner has also examined the attesting . As such, the petitioner has already led Furthermore, it cannot be ignored that the present is the third application for amendment filed by the petitioner; framing the issue regarding relief of injunction was already framed by the learned trial Court on two previous occasions. Needless to say, if the plaintiff had sought relief of declaration on ill, the Thus, it is to only in order to only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn in this circumstance is that it is a concerted effort on part of the viz prayer is for restraining the petitioner from interfering in the Society, and from encroaching upon SUNENA 2025.05.22 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the premises of the Gaushala Complex extraneous to the dispute at hand and 10 interfere in the impugned order. Present petition 11. 20.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: the premises of the Gaushala Complex extraneous to the dispute at hand and need In this view of the matter, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Present petition Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No – the issue of ownership is need not to be determined. In this view of the matter, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 issue of ownership is In this view of the matter, no ground is made out to SUNENA 2025.05.22 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document