CR-6116-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jarnail Singh and Another Sandeep Singh CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner defendants challenging the order dated Judge (Senior Division), under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. The adm injunction wherein the only question required to be determined is whether the plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property and whether such possession deserves protection from alleged controversy, the documents sought to be incorporated by way of amendment namely, the alleged Panchayati agreement dated 18.08.2004 and the affidavit of the father of defendant No.1 confined to possession, the validity or otherwise of such documents has no bearing on the real controversy. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : Jarnail Singh and Another VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the Heard. The admitted position is that the present suit is one for permanent injunction wherein the only question required to be determined is whether the plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property and whether such possession deserves protection from alleged interference by the defendants. For deciding such controversy, the documents sought to be incorporated by way of amendment namely, the alleged Panchayati agreement dated 18.08.2004 and the affidavit of the father of defendant No.1, are wholly irrelevant. confined to possession, the validity or otherwise of such documents has no bearing on the real controversy. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6116-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 04.09.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU . Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioners. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner .08.2025 passed by the learned Civil whereby the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement was itted position is that the present suit is one for permanent injunction wherein the only question required to be determined is whether the plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property and whether such possession interference by the defendants. For deciding such controversy, the documents sought to be incorporated by way of amendment namely, the alleged Panchayati agreement dated 18.08.2004 and the affidavit of the are wholly irrelevant. The nature of the suit being confined to possession, the validity or otherwise of such documents has no bearing - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- .08.2025 passed by the learned Civil whereby the application moved by the plaintiff was itted position is that the present suit is one for permanent injunction wherein the only question required to be determined is whether the plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property and whether such possession interference by the defendants. For deciding such controversy, the documents sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, namely, the alleged Panchayati agreement dated 18.08.2004 and the affidavit of the The nature of the suit being confined to possession, the validity or otherwise of such documents has no bearing TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6116-2025 (O&M) 4. Further, the defence already taken by the defendants in their written statement is that they are in possession of to sell dated 29.08.2016 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. By moving the present application, they now seek to introduce a completely contradictory stand based on an alleged family settlement/P The law does not permit a party to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Once the defendants themselves have predicated their possession on an agreement to sell, they cannot simultaneously claim possession under a distinct and inconsis founded on an alleged family arrangement. Such contradictory pleas are impermissible and would only serve to prejudice the plaintiff, who has already concluded his evidence on the basis of the defence originally pleaded. 5. It is also not in di belated stage. Issues were framed long back, the parties were granted ample opportunity to lead evidence, and the plaintiff has already closed his evidence. The defendants too availed several opportunit when the matter written statement. Entertaining such amendment would amount to reopening the entire trial and delaying the disposal of the matter, whi principle that litigation must come to an end within reasonable time. 6. Moreover, the basic condition stipulated in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has not been satisfied. The defendants were obliged to demonstrate that despite exercise of due diligence, they could not have raised the plea or produced the documents sought to be introduced by way of amendment. No such explanation has been furnished. The Panchayati agreement is of the year 2004, executed by none other than the f (O&M) Further, the defence already taken by the defendants in their written statement is that they are in possession of the property on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 29.08.2016 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. By moving the present application, they now seek to introduce a completely contradictory stand based on an alleged family settlement/P The law does not permit a party to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Once the defendants themselves have predicated their possession on an agreement to sell, they cannot simultaneously claim possession under a distinct and inconsis founded on an alleged family arrangement. Such contradictory pleas are impermissible and would only serve to prejudice the plaintiff, who has already concluded his evidence on the basis of the defence originally pleaded. It is also not in dispute that the application has been moved at a highly belated stage. Issues were framed long back, the parties were granted ample opportunity to lead evidence, and the plaintiff has already closed his evidence. The defendants too availed several opportunities to lead their evidence. At this stage, when the matter is at the fag end, the application has been moved to amend the written statement. Entertaining such amendment would amount to reopening the entire trial and delaying the disposal of the matter, whi principle that litigation must come to an end within reasonable time. Moreover, the basic condition stipulated in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has not been satisfied. The defendants were obliged to demonstrate te exercise of due diligence, they could not have raised the plea or produced the documents sought to be introduced by way of amendment. No such explanation has been furnished. The Panchayati agreement is of the year 2004, executed by none other than the father of defendant No.1, of which the defendants -2- Further, the defence already taken by the defendants in their written the property on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 29.08.2016 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. By moving the present application, they now seek to introduce a completely contradictory stand based on an alleged family settlement/Panchayati agreement. The law does not permit a party to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Once the defendants themselves have predicated their possession on an agreement to sell, they cannot simultaneously claim possession under a distinct and inconsistent title founded on an alleged family arrangement. Such contradictory pleas are impermissible and would only serve to prejudice the plaintiff, who has already concluded his evidence on the basis of the defence originally pleaded. spute that the application has been moved at a highly belated stage. Issues were framed long back, the parties were granted ample opportunity to lead evidence, and the plaintiff has already closed his evidence. The ies to lead their evidence. At this stage, , the application has been moved to amend the written statement. Entertaining such amendment would amount to reopening the entire trial and delaying the disposal of the matter, which is against the settled principle that litigation must come to an end within reasonable time. Moreover, the basic condition stipulated in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has not been satisfied. The defendants were obliged to demonstrate te exercise of due diligence, they could not have raised the plea or produced the documents sought to be introduced by way of amendment. No such explanation has been furnished. The Panchayati agreement is of the year 2004, ather of defendant No.1, of which the defendants - Further, the defence already taken by the defendants in their written the property on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 29.08.2016 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. By moving the present application, they now seek to introduce a completely anchayati agreement. The law does not permit a party to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Once the defendants themselves have predicated their possession on an agreement to sell, tent title founded on an alleged family arrangement. Such contradictory pleas are impermissible and would only serve to prejudice the plaintiff, who has already spute that the application has been moved at a highly belated stage. Issues were framed long back, the parties were granted ample opportunity to lead evidence, and the plaintiff has already closed his evidence. The ies to lead their evidence. At this stage, , the application has been moved to amend the written statement. Entertaining such amendment would amount to reopening the ch is against the settled Moreover, the basic condition stipulated in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has not been satisfied. The defendants were obliged to demonstrate te exercise of due diligence, they could not have raised the plea or produced the documents sought to be introduced by way of amendment. No such explanation has been furnished. The Panchayati agreement is of the year 2004, ather of defendant No.1, of which the defendants TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6116-2025 (O&M) were fully aware. It cannot therefore be said that the existence of the document was not within their knowledge. A party who sits over his rights and seeks to introduce stale documents at the fag end cannot doing complete justice. 7. The Supreme Court in Narayanaswamy & Sons (2009) 10 SCC 84 Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022) down the guiding factors for allowing amendment, which include: whether the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy, whether it changes the nature of the case, whether it is mala fide or intended to delay proceedings, and whether due dil the proposed amendment is not only unnecessary but also contradictory to the earlier defence, would change the very nature of the case, has been moved at the last stage only to delay the Conclusion: 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the con the learned trial C CPC. The proposed amendment i suit for injunction nor consistent with the original defence. amount to setting up an altogether new case, which is impermissible. The application is further barred by lack of due diligence, since the defendants were aware of the document of 2004 from the very inception. Allowing such amendment at the stage w grave prejudice to the plaintiff and protract the proceedings unnecessarily. The (O&M) were fully aware. It cannot therefore be said that the existence of the document was not within their knowledge. A party who sits over his rights and seeks to introduce stale documents at the fag end cannot doing complete justice. The Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons (2009) 10 SCC 84 Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022) down the guiding factors for allowing amendment, which include: whether the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy, whether it changes the nature of the case, whether it is mala fide or intended to delay proceedings, and igence has been exercised. Applying these tests, it is manifest that the proposed amendment is not only unnecessary but also contradictory to the earlier defence, would change the very nature of the case, has been moved at the last stage only to delay the disposal of the suit, and is hit by want of due diligence. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the con the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The proposed amendment is neither relevant to the real controversy in the suit for injunction nor consistent with the original defence. amount to setting up an altogether new case, which is impermissible. The application is further barred by lack of due diligence, since the defendants were aware of the document of 2004 from the very inception. Allowing such amendment at the stage when evidence has already been concluded would result in grave prejudice to the plaintiff and protract the proceedings unnecessarily. The -3- were fully aware. It cannot therefore be said that the existence of the document was not within their knowledge. A party who sits over his rights and seeks to introduce stale documents at the fag end cannot claim indulgence under the garb of Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons (2009) 10 SCC 84 and again in Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022) SCC Online SC 112 has laid down the guiding factors for allowing amendment, which include: whether the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy, whether it changes the nature of the case, whether it is mala fide or intended to delay proceedings, and igence has been exercised. Applying these tests, it is manifest that the proposed amendment is not only unnecessary but also contradictory to the earlier defence, would change the very nature of the case, has been moved at the disposal of the suit, and is hit by want of due diligence. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that ourt rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 s neither relevant to the real controversy in the suit for injunction nor consistent with the original defence. Rather, it would amount to setting up an altogether new case, which is impermissible. The application is further barred by lack of due diligence, since the defendants were aware of the document of 2004 from the very inception. Allowing such hen evidence has already been concluded would result in grave prejudice to the plaintiff and protract the proceedings unnecessarily. The - were fully aware. It cannot therefore be said that the existence of the document was not within their knowledge. A party who sits over his rights and seeks to claim indulgence under the garb of Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Life Insurance laid down the guiding factors for allowing amendment, which include: whether the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy, whether it changes the nature of the case, whether it is mala fide or intended to delay proceedings, and igence has been exercised. Applying these tests, it is manifest that the proposed amendment is not only unnecessary but also contradictory to the earlier defence, would change the very nature of the case, has been moved at the disposal of the suit, and is hit by want of due diligence. sidered opinion that ourt rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 s neither relevant to the real controversy in the t would amount to setting up an altogether new case, which is impermissible. The application is further barred by lack of due diligence, since the defendants were aware of the document of 2004 from the very inception. Allowing such hen evidence has already been concluded would result in grave prejudice to the plaintiff and protract the proceedings unnecessarily. The TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6116-2025 (O&M) order of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdict 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 04, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) order of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- order of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - order of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document