CR-6010-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gagandeep Singh Paramjit Singh (now deceased) through LRs CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, whereby his application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the written statement Brief facts 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery Rs.83,000/- as interest @12% per annum, receipt dated 10.09.2017, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant. Upon service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement wherein he categorically denied the execution of the promissory note and receip pleadings, issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the parties. At that stage, when the matter was fixed for defendant’s evidence, the present (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on Gagandeep Singh VERSUS (now deceased) through LRs CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant assailing the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, whereby his application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the written statement, has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.4,33,000/- i.e. Rs.3,50,000/ as interest @12% per annum, on the basis of a promiss receipt dated 10.09.2017, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant. Upon service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement wherein he categorically denied the execution of the promissory note and receipt, terming them as forged and fabricated. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the parties. At that stage, when the matter was fixed for defendant’s evidence, the present -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6010-2025 (O&M) Decided on:- 02.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU the petitioner. The present revision petition has been filed by the assailing the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, whereby his application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, , has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- as principal amount and on the basis of a promissory note and receipt dated 10.09.2017, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant. Upon service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement wherein he categorically denied the execution of the promissory t, terming them as forged and fabricated. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the parties. At that stage, when the matter was fixed for defendant’s evidence, the present - The present revision petition has been filed by the assailing the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, whereby his application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a as principal amount and ory note and receipt dated 10.09.2017, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant. Upon service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement wherein he categorically denied the execution of the promissory t, terming them as forged and fabricated. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the parties. At that stage, when the matter was fixed for defendant’s evidence, the present TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6010-2025 (O&M) application under Order VI Rule 1 written statement. 3. In support of the application, it was urged on behalf of the defendant that at the time when the written statement was originally filed, two criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negoti plaintiff-Paramjit Singh Maigstrate, Ist Class set of alleged documents, namely the disputed promissory two cheques purportedly issued by the defendant. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 03.01.2025, both the complaints were dismissed as the plaintiff, who was complainant therein, failed to prove his case. It was the stand of the def Gagandeep Singh signed pronote and with the understanding that these would be destroyed upon settlement. However, with mala fide intention, the plaintiff misused the same and instituted false complaints, which have now been disbelieved by the criminal court. The defendant, therefore, sought amendment by way of introducing para 5 legal objections of his written statement contending that such amendment was material for just adjudication of the controversy in the present civil suit. It was further argued that the amendment was bona fide, would not change the nature of the defence, nor c plaintiff, and that law regarding amendment of written statement is liberal. 4. After considering the submissions, this Court finds no merit in the present revision necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, and which do (O&M) application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking amendment of the written statement. In support of the application, it was urged on behalf of the defendant that at the time when the written statement was originally filed, two criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the Paramjit Singh, were pending adjudication before the learned Maigstrate, Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo. Those complaints were based on the same set of alleged documents, namely the disputed promissory two cheques purportedly issued by the defendant. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 03.01.2025, both the complaints were dismissed as the plaintiff, who was complainant therein, failed to prove his case. It was the stand of the def Gagandeep Singh that the plaintiff had misused blank signed cheques and a blank pronote and receipt which were handed over only as collateral security, with the understanding that these would be destroyed upon settlement. However, ide intention, the plaintiff misused the same and instituted false complaints, which have now been disbelieved by the criminal court. The defendant, therefore, sought amendment by way of introducing para 5 legal objections of his written statement to plead this subsequent development, contending that such amendment was material for just adjudication of the controversy in the present civil suit. It was further argued that the amendment was bona fide, would not change the nature of the defence, nor c plaintiff, and that law regarding amendment of written statement is liberal. After considering the submissions, this Court finds no merit in the present revision petition. It is no doubt settled law that amendments which are ssary for determining the real controversy between the parties, and which do -2- 7 CPC was filed seeking amendment of the In support of the application, it was urged on behalf of the defendant that at the time when the written statement was originally filed, two criminal able Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the , were pending adjudication before the learned Judicial , Talwandi Sabo. Those complaints were based on the same set of alleged documents, namely the disputed promissory note, receipt, as well as two cheques purportedly issued by the defendant. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 03.01.2025, both the complaints were dismissed as the plaintiff, who was complainant therein, failed to prove his case. It was the stand of the defendant that the plaintiff had misused blank signed cheques and a blank receipt which were handed over only as collateral security, with the understanding that these would be destroyed upon settlement. However, ide intention, the plaintiff misused the same and instituted false complaints, which have now been disbelieved by the criminal court. The defendant, therefore, sought amendment by way of introducing para 5-A in the to plead this subsequent development, contending that such amendment was material for just adjudication of the controversy in the present civil suit. It was further argued that the amendment was bona fide, would not change the nature of the defence, nor cause prejudice to the plaintiff, and that law regarding amendment of written statement is liberal. After considering the submissions, this Court finds no merit in the . It is no doubt settled law that amendments which are ssary for determining the real controversy between the parties, and which do - 7 CPC was filed seeking amendment of the In support of the application, it was urged on behalf of the defendant that at the time when the written statement was originally filed, two criminal able Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the Judicial , Talwandi Sabo. Those complaints were based on the same note, receipt, as well as two cheques purportedly issued by the defendant. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 03.01.2025, both the complaints were dismissed as the plaintiff, who was endant- that the plaintiff had misused blank signed cheques and a blank receipt which were handed over only as collateral security, with the understanding that these would be destroyed upon settlement. However, ide intention, the plaintiff misused the same and instituted false complaints, which have now been disbelieved by the criminal court. The A in the to plead this subsequent development, contending that such amendment was material for just adjudication of the controversy in the present civil suit. It was further argued that the amendment was ause prejudice to the After considering the submissions, this Court finds no merit in the . It is no doubt settled law that amendments which are ssary for determining the real controversy between the parties, and which do TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6010-2025 (O&M) not change the nature of the suit or defence, should ordinarily be allowed. Equally well settled is the principle that a party seeking amendment must demonstrate due diligence in raising the proposed plea and that such amendment must be material to the controversy in issue. In the present case, the defendant had already taken a categorical stand in his original written statement that the disputed promissory note and receipt were fo execution was already on record. The subsequent dismissal of the complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments plea, but is at best an additiona defendant at the time of arguments to support his stand already taken. 5. Further, the finding of a criminal court in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments independently adjudicate the validity of the promissory note and receipt on the basis of evidence led before it. The civil court is competent to take judicial notice of the judgment passed by the criminal court, which can be produced at of trial, even without incorporation of an amendment in the pleadings. The necessity of amendment, therefore, does not arise merely for placing reliance on such judgment. 6. Moreover, it is the admitted case of the defendant that when he filed his written statement, the said complaints were already pending adjudication. If he considered their pendency to be material, he could well have pleaded this fact in the original written favourable to him, could have been placed on record as additional material evidence, without necessitating amendment of pleadings. The belated stage at (O&M) not change the nature of the suit or defence, should ordinarily be allowed. Equally well settled is the principle that a party seeking amendment must demonstrate due raising the proposed plea and that such amendment must be material to the controversy in issue. In the present case, the defendant had already taken a categorical stand in his original written statement that the disputed promissory note and receipt were forged and fabricated. Thus, his defence regarding denial of execution was already on record. The subsequent dismissal of the complaints under Negotiable Instruments Act does not introduce any new or different plea, but is at best an additional circumstance which may be relied upon by the defendant at the time of arguments to support his stand already taken. Further, the finding of a criminal court in a complaint under Section Negotiable Instruments Act is not binding on the civil c independently adjudicate the validity of the promissory note and receipt on the basis of evidence led before it. The civil court is competent to take judicial notice of the judgment passed by the criminal court, which can be produced at of trial, even without incorporation of an amendment in the pleadings. The necessity of amendment, therefore, does not arise merely for placing reliance on Moreover, it is the admitted case of the defendant that when he filed his written statement, the said complaints were already pending adjudication. If he considered their pendency to be material, he could well have pleaded this fact in the original written statement. The eventual decision of those complaints, even if favourable to him, could have been placed on record as additional material evidence, without necessitating amendment of pleadings. The belated stage at -3- not change the nature of the suit or defence, should ordinarily be allowed. Equally well settled is the principle that a party seeking amendment must demonstrate due raising the proposed plea and that such amendment must be material to the controversy in issue. In the present case, the defendant had already taken a categorical stand in his original written statement that the disputed promissory note rged and fabricated. Thus, his defence regarding denial of execution was already on record. The subsequent dismissal of the complaints under Act does not introduce any new or different l circumstance which may be relied upon by the defendant at the time of arguments to support his stand already taken. Further, the finding of a criminal court in a complaint under Section Act is not binding on the civil court, which has to independently adjudicate the validity of the promissory note and receipt on the basis of evidence led before it. The civil court is competent to take judicial notice of the judgment passed by the criminal court, which can be produced at any stage of trial, even without incorporation of an amendment in the pleadings. The necessity of amendment, therefore, does not arise merely for placing reliance on Moreover, it is the admitted case of the defendant that when he filed his written statement, the said complaints were already pending adjudication. If he considered their pendency to be material, he could well have pleaded this fact in statement. The eventual decision of those complaints, even if favourable to him, could have been placed on record as additional material evidence, without necessitating amendment of pleadings. The belated stage at - not change the nature of the suit or defence, should ordinarily be allowed. Equally well settled is the principle that a party seeking amendment must demonstrate due raising the proposed plea and that such amendment must be material to the controversy in issue. In the present case, the defendant had already taken a categorical stand in his original written statement that the disputed promissory note rged and fabricated. Thus, his defence regarding denial of execution was already on record. The subsequent dismissal of the complaints under Act does not introduce any new or different l circumstance which may be relied upon by the Further, the finding of a criminal court in a complaint under Section ourt, which has to independently adjudicate the validity of the promissory note and receipt on the basis of evidence led before it. The civil court is competent to take judicial notice any stage of trial, even without incorporation of an amendment in the pleadings. The necessity of amendment, therefore, does not arise merely for placing reliance on Moreover, it is the admitted case of the defendant that when he filed his written statement, the said complaints were already pending adjudication. If he considered their pendency to be material, he could well have pleaded this fact in statement. The eventual decision of those complaints, even if favourable to him, could have been placed on record as additional material evidence, without necessitating amendment of pleadings. The belated stage at TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6010-2025 (O&M) which the amendment was sought also milit diligence envisaged under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 7. The trial C was not necessary for the just decision of the case. This Court is of the considered opinion that the proposed amendment does not serve to determine the real controversy, as the defence of the defendant stands fully covered by the original written statement. The attempt to introduce further detail regarding dismissal of complaints under S suit. The trial court’s reasoning that such facts can always be brought to the notice of the court at the stage of arguments, without the necessity of amendment, is justified. Allowing such a protraction of proceedings, contrary to the mandate of law that pleadings should not be permitted to be altered at a belated stage unless compelling necessity is shown. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds dated 16.07.2025 merit. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 02, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) which the amendment was sought also militates against the requirement of due diligence envisaged under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the proposed amendment was not necessary for the just decision of the case. This Court is of the considered opinion that the proposed amendment does not serve to determine the real controversy, as the defence of the defendant stands fully covered by the original written statement. The attempt to introduce further detail regarding dismissal of complaints under Section 138 NI Act is not essential for adjudication of the civil suit. The trial court’s reasoning that such facts can always be brought to the notice of the court at the stage of arguments, without the necessity of amendment, is justified. Allowing such amendments would only result in unnecessary delay and protraction of proceedings, contrary to the mandate of law that pleadings should not be permitted to be altered at a belated stage unless compelling necessity is Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 and dismiss the present revision petition being devoid of any Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- ates against the requirement of due diligence envisaged under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. ourt, therefore, rightly held that the proposed amendment was not necessary for the just decision of the case. This Court is of the considered opinion that the proposed amendment does not serve to determine the real controversy, as the defence of the defendant stands fully covered by the original written statement. The attempt to introduce further detail regarding dismissal of ection 138 NI Act is not essential for adjudication of the civil suit. The trial court’s reasoning that such facts can always be brought to the notice of the court at the stage of arguments, without the necessity of amendment, is mendments would only result in unnecessary delay and protraction of proceedings, contrary to the mandate of law that pleadings should not be permitted to be altered at a belated stage unless compelling necessity is no infirmity in the impugned order the present revision petition being devoid of any Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - ates against the requirement of due ourt, therefore, rightly held that the proposed amendment was not necessary for the just decision of the case. This Court is of the considered opinion that the proposed amendment does not serve to determine the real controversy, as the defence of the defendant stands fully covered by the original written statement. The attempt to introduce further detail regarding dismissal of ection 138 NI Act is not essential for adjudication of the civil suit. The trial court’s reasoning that such facts can always be brought to the notice of the court at the stage of arguments, without the necessity of amendment, is mendments would only result in unnecessary delay and protraction of proceedings, contrary to the mandate of law that pleadings should not be permitted to be altered at a belated stage unless compelling necessity is no infirmity in the impugned order the present revision petition being devoid of any TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document