CR-93-2024 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-93-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Vijay Kumar Jain and others ...Pe((oners Versus Sunil Joshi and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the pe((oners. Mr. Satwant Singh Rangi, Advocate and Mr. Ramanpreet Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-18205-CII-2025 This is an applica(on under Sec(on 151 of CPC for placing on record list of dates and events in compliance of order dated 28.08.2025. Applica(on is allowed. List of dates and events in chronological manner as filed by the pe((oners, are taken on record. CR-93-2024 1. Pe((oners herein are defendants in civil suit bearing No.CS- 457-2022 (tled “Sunil Joshi and another Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain and others”, pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura. They are aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the trial Court, whereby applica(on under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint moved by the plain(ffs (respondents herein) has been allowed. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that vide an agreement to sell dated 08.04.2022, plain(ffs agreed to purchase suit land measuring 25 bighas, 7 biswa owned by the defendants i.e. pe((oners herein at the rate Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.09 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-93-2024 (O&M) [2] of Rs.20,10,000/- per bigha. An amount of Rs.51,00,000/- was paid as per the agreement as earnest money, out of which Rs.20,00,000/- were shown to be paid by way of four different cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each and Rs.31,00,000/- were paid in cash. Learned counsel submits that as per the terms of the agreement, in case, any of the cheque men(oned in the agreement to sell is dishonored by the bank for any reason, the en(re agreement will stand cancelled. Learned counsel submits that out of the four cheques given by the respondents-plain(ffs, three cheques were dishonored for one or the other reason. Accordingly, in terms of the agreement, the pe((oners returned the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- received on account of encashment of one of the cheque. As requests made by the pe((oners to the respondents to take back the amount of Rs.31,00,000/- in cash were not heeded to, the pe((oners returned that amount by way of four different RTGS on 29.04.2022 and on the same date, sent a no(ce to the respondents-plain(ffs in(ma(ng about the cancella(on of the agreement to sell with the further request to return the original agreement to sell dated 08.04.2022with the endorsement of its cancella(on. Despite receipt of the no(ce, the respondents-plain(ffs filed the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunc(on against the pe((oners herein. 3. Learned counsel contends that pe((oners filed detailed wriBen statement sta(ng all the aforesaid facts and then the applica(on for temporary injunc(on moved by the plain(ffs-respondents was dismissed on 18.05.2022 vide Annexure P-4. The trial Court then issued necessary issues and plain(ffs-respondents availed two opportuni(es to lead evidence but failed to do so. 4. Learned counsel submits that instead of producing any evidence, the plain(ffs-respondents moved an applica(on on 12.09.2022 Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.09 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-93-2024 (O&M) [3] for amendment of the plaint so as to convert the suit of specific performance into suit for specific performance. Learned counsel submits that despite strong objec(on by the pe((oners-defendants, that applica(on has been allowed by way of the impugned order. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order, it is contended by learned counsel that in para No.5 of the plaint ini(ally filed by the respondents- plain(ffs, they had candidly admiBed the receipt of Rs.36,00,000/- which had been transferred by the pe((oners-defendants. However, by way of the proposed amendment, prayer has been made by the respondents- plain(ffs not only seeking a decree of specific performance but also in the alterna(ve for recovery of Rs.2,56,03,500/- i.e. en(re considera(on as per the agreement to sell, which includes the earnest money of Rs.51,00,000/-. 6. Learned counsel submits that though the cheques for Rs.15,00,000/- were not encashed and the plain(ffs-respondents admiBed to have received the amount of Rs.36,00,000/- as returned to them, s(ll the plain(ffs, by way of the proposed amendment sought to recover that amount of Rs.51,00,000/-, which shows that they want to withdraw from the admission earlier made by them and so the plaint could not have been permiBed to be amended to withdraw from the admission. 7. AEer considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the pe((oners at length and aEer going through the paper book, this Court does not find merit in the conten(on. 8. Despite specific query put to the learned counsel, he could not point out as to whether in the applica(on under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC (Annexure P-5), the respondents-plain(ffs anywhere sought to withdraw from the admission regarding receipt of Rs.36,00,000/-, which were transferred to them by the pe((oners. Simply because, the plain(ffs have Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.09 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-93-2024 (O&M) [4] sought in the alterna(ve, a decree for recovery of the en(re sale considera(on, which includes the ini(ally paid earnest money of Rs.51,00,000/- cannot be taken as withdrawal of the admission as made in the plaint. 9. Apart from the above, the case was at an ini(al stage inasmuch as, no evidence was led by the plain(ffs (ll date. It is also not disputed that when the applica(on for amendment of the plaint was moved, the relief of specific performance was within limita(on. This fact has also been no(ced by the trial Court. Pe((oners-defendants will get the opportunity to file an amended wriBen statement by refu(ng the conten(ons which the plain(ffs-respondents want to make in the amended plaint. 10. In all the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order for invoking the revisional power of this Court to interfere in the same. 11. As such holding that there is no merit in the present revision pe((on, the same is dismissed. 08.09.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.09 18:12 I agree to specified portions of this document