CR-3799-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3799-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.05.2026 Naveen Sachdeva and another ...Pe''oners Versus Unna' Babu Lal Chaurasia and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the pe''oners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision pe''on has been filed challenging the order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, whereby the applica'on moved by the plain'ffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the pe''oners-defendants contends that the amendment permi>ed by the trial Court changes the very nature of the suit inasmuch as a suit originally framed without seeking the substan've relief of specific performance has now been converted into a suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 28.08.2023. It is argued that the amendment has been sought only to fill up lacunae in the pleadings and that the same causes serious prejudice to the defendants. It is further submi>ed that the valua'on of the suit and the court fee paid thereon are also incorrect. 3. AAer hearing learned counsel for the pe''oners and perusing the impugned order, this Court finds no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdic'on. 4. It is well se>led that amendments to pleadings are to be YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.07 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3799-2026 (O&M) [2] liberally allowed, if they are necessary for determining the real controversy between the par'es and do not cause irreparable prejudice to the opposite side. The object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC is to minimize li'ga'on and to enable the Court to effec'vely adjudicate the dispute between the par'es. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that amendments necessary for proper and effec've adjudica'on of the case should ordinarily be permi>ed unless they fundamentally alter the nature of the proceedings or cause injus'ce incapable of compensa'on. 5. In the present case, the material facts already existed in the plaint. The agreement to sell dated 28.08.2023 cons'tuted the basis of the suit even prior to amendment. By way of amendment, the plain'ffs have merely sought incorpora'on of the relief of specific performance flowing from the same transac'on. Therefore, it cannot be said that a wholly new or inconsistent cause of ac'on has been introduced. 6. The learned trial Court has rightly no'ced that the ma>er was s'll at a pre-trial stage. Replica'on had not even been filed. Consequently, the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC was not a>racted. No vested right had accrued in favour of the defendants so as to defeat considera'on of the amendment on merits. The defendants have also been granted liberty to file addi'onal wri>en statement confined to the amended pleadings and, therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused. 7. So far as the objec'on regarding valua'on and payment of court fee is concerned, the learned trial Court has specifically kept the said issue open to be decided during trial. The plain'ffs have also been directed to affix the requisite ad valorem court fee on the valua'on disclosed by them. Thus, no jurisdic'onal error or material irregularity can be said to have been commi>ed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.07 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3799-2026 (O&M) [3] 8. The scope of interference in revision under Sec'on 115 CPC is limited. Unless the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdic'onal error or material irregularity causing failure of jus'ce, interference is not warranted. The order under challenge reflects proper exercise of judicial discre'on based upon se>led principles governing amendment of pleadings. This Court does not find the discre'on exercised by the trial Court to be arbitrary or perverse. 9. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision pe''on, the same is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous applica'on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 06.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.07 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document