IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 115 CR-2110-2026 Date of Decision.:06.03.2026 Narinder Pal Singh …..Pe--oner Vs. Patwinder Kaur and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The peoner herein is the plainff in Civil Suit No. CS-2146- 2022 tled “Narinder Pal Singh vs. Ishtdev Singh and Others” pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paala. The present revision peon has been filed assailing the order dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby the applicaon filed by the peoner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed by the trial Court. 2. A perusal of the paper-book would show that the peoner instuted the aforesaid suit seeking a decree of permanent injuncon with respect to the property described in the head-note of the plaint, asserng himself to be the owner in possession thereof. As per the case set up in the original plaint, the suit plot measuring 93.33 square yards was stated to be part of a larger plot measuring 853 square yards, which had allegedly been purchased by Smt. Harbans Kaur wife of Sohan Singh, the mother of the plainff, from the previous owner Smt. Laajo vide sale deed (Vasika No.4505) dated 27.07.1989. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the pares, the trial Court framed the necessary issues on 18.04.2024 and the case was fixed for the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2110-2026 -2- plainff’s evidence. The record further reflects that the plainff-peoner availed as many as six opportunies to lead evidence but failed to conclude the same. It was thereaBer, on 26.03.2025, that the peoner moved the applicaon seeking amendment of the plaint, asserng that the suit plot in fact formed part of a larger parcel of land measuring 1865 square yards allegedly purchased vide Vasika No.4506 dated 27.07.1989 from Sh. Gurdial Singh son of Krishan Singh. 4. It is thus evident that by way of the proposed amendment, the peoner sought to alter the very foundaon of the case originally pleaded in the plaint. In the original plaint, the suit property was claimed to be part of a plot measuring 853 square yards purchased from Smt. Laajo vide Vasika No.4505 dated 27.07.1989. However, through the amendment, the peoner intended to assert that the suit property was part of a different larger plot measuring 1865 square yards purchased vide Vasika No.4506 dated 27.07.1989 from an altogether different vendor, namely Sh. Gurdial Singh. In substance, therefore, the peoner sought to substute the source of tle, the extent of the parent property as well as the identy of the vendor. 5. Such an amendment, if permiCed, would clearly have the effect of introducing an enrely new and inconsistent case, thereby changing the basic structure and nature of the suit. It is well seCled that although amendments of pleadings are generally to be allowed in order to determine the real controversy between the pares, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC imposes a clear restricon that once the trial has commenced, an amendment cannot be allowed unless the party seeking amendment sasfies the Court that despite due diligence the maCer could not have been raised before the commencement of trial. 6. In the present case, the issues had already been framed and the maCer had progressed to the stage of plainff’s evidence. The NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2110-2026 -3- peoner had already availed several opportunies to lead evidence, yet no explanaon worth acceptance has been offered as to why the facts now sought to be introduced by way of amendment could not have been pleaded earlier. The plea now sought to be incorporated relates to the very basis of the plainff’s claim of ownership and is founded upon documents allegedly executed in the year 1989. These facts were clearly within the knowledge of the peoner from the very incepon and could have been pleaded at the me of filing the suit. 7. Allowing such an amendment at this stage would not only defeat the mandate of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC but would also cause serious prejudice to the defendants by compelling them to meet an altogether new case aBer the trial has already commenced. It would effecvely amount to permiDng the peoner to withdraw the admissions made in the original pleadings and to set up a completely different cause of acon. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the peoner was aCempng to change the enre nature and basis of the suit aBer the commencement of the trial and that the requirements of due diligence as contemplated under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC were not sasfied. 9. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdiconal error in the impugned order warranng interference in exercise of revisional jurisdicon. The present revision peon is accordingly dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 06, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document