IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 116 CR-3239-2026 Date of Decision.: 17.04.2026 Rajesh Kumar Sharma …..Pe00oner Vs. Rajender Pershad Sharma and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present civil revision has been filed by the defendants- peoners assailing the order dated 13.03.2026 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal, whereby the applicaon filed by the plainff- respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Secon 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/-. 2. The suit in queson has been instuted by the plainff seeking declaraon, permanent injuncon and joint possession in respect of the suit property while challenging, inter alia, a Will dated 25.08.2014 and other subsequent instruments. 3. During pendency of the suit, the plainff moved an applicaon for amendment pleading that the executant of the Will had subsequently cancelled the same by execung a cancellaon deed dated 20.05.2015, which fact allegedly came to his knowledge later through his maternal uncle, who had custody of the document. The trial Court, a@er hearing NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3239-2026 both sides, allowed the amendment. 4. Learned senior advocate for the peoner contends that the amendment has been sought at a belated stage a@er commencement of trial and a@er conclusion of defendants’ evidence. It is argued that the alleged cancellaon deed is forged and fabricated and the amendment has been moved only to fill lacunae in the plainff’s case. It is further submiCed that the requirement of due diligence, as contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, has not been sasfied. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the peoner and have perused the paper-book. 6. The scope of interference in revision against an interlocutory order allowing amendment of pleadings is limited. Unless the order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdiconal error or material irregularity, this Court would be slow to substute its own discreon for that exercised by the trial Court. 7. Order VI Rule 17 CPC confers wide power upon the Court to permit amendment of pleadings where such amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the pares. The dominant object of the provision is to avoid mulplicity of ligaon and to enable complete adjudicaon of disputes in one lis. 8. In the present case, the main controversy in the suit includes challenge to the Will dated 25.08.2014. The proposed amendment seeks to plead that the said Will stood cancelled subsequently through a deed dated 20.05.2015. Whether such document is genuine, valid or fabricated is not a maCer to be conclusively examined at the stage of considering amendment. Those are quesons of evidence to be adjudicated during trial. 9. The contenon of the peoner that the amendment is belated also does not persuade this Court to interfere. The trial Court has Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3239-2026 noced the plainff’s explanaon that the document surfaced subsequently and the fact came to his knowledge therea@er. Whether such explanaon ulmately inspires confidence is a maCer for appreciaon at final adjudicaon. At the stage of amendment, the Court is only to see whether the plea is bona fide and relevant to the controversy. 10. It may also be noted that the trial Court has compensated the defendants by imposing costs and has preserved their right to file amended wriCen statement and lead evidence in rebuCal. Thus, no irreparable prejudice is caused to the peoner. 11. The argument that the amendment permits the plainff to fill the lacunae is also misconceived. Merely because an addional plea may strengthen one side’s case is no ground to reject amendment, if the plea is germane to the dispute and its adjudicaon would assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. 12. This Court finds that the impugned order is reasoned, based upon seCled principles governing amendment of pleadings, and does not suffer from any perversity or jurisdiconal infirmity warranng interference under revisional jurisdicon. 13. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision peon, the same is dismissed. 14. It is, however, clarified that any observaons made herein or by the trial Court while deciding the amendment applicaon shall not be construed as an expression on merits of the controversy, which shall be determined independently on the basis of evidence led by the pares. 15. Learned senior advocate for the peoner has pointed out that the suit was filed wayback in 2017 and had reached the stage of rebuCal/arguments and therefore, trial Court be directed to dispose of the suit in me bound manner. The said request made by learned counsel for the peoner is quite jusfied. The concerned trial Court is directed to Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3239-2026 make every possible efforts to dispose of the suit expediously, preferably within a period of 06 months a@er geEng the cerfied copy of order of this Court. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 17, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document