125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CCCCRRRR----2222555522228888----2222000022222222 Date of Decision:- 14.07.2026 JAGTAR SINGH ....Petitioner Vs. GURMEET KAUR ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate and Ms. Suman Rani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karanvir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh Makkar, Advocate for the respondent. ***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner Jagtar Singh filed civil revision challenging the impugned order dated 12.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa in Civil Suit No.404 dated 15.07.2019 titled as “Jagtar Singh Vs. Gurmeet Kaur” whereby the application filed by petitioner/plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint has been wrongly declined by passing the aforesaid impugned order. 2. Learned counsel representing petitioner pointed out that petitioner/plaintiff Jagtar Singh filed suit for joint possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.06.2018 regarding the land as detailed in the plaint (Annexure P-1). In the aforesaid plaint, it was inadvertently mentioned that earnest money was paid by way of cheque No.000072 of HDFC Bank, Branch Dhanaula in the presence of the witnesses and the remaining amount was paid at the time of execution of SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CCCCRRRR----2222555522228888----2222000022222222 ----2222---- sale deed on 25.06.2019. The respondent/defendant being illiterate lady requested the petitioner/plaintiff to pay the earnest money in cash and for this reason the cheque was returned and the earnest money of Rs.1 lakh was paid in cash to the respondent/defendant. Inadvertently, the aforesaid factual position was not mentioned in the plaint (Annexure P-1). Therefore, the application for amendment of plaint (Annexure P-2) was filed to add para No.3 in the plaint after para No.2. It is pointed out that the case is at initial stage. The written statement is yet to be filed. Therefore, the respondent/defendant will not suffer any prejudice. Without considering the aforesaid factual position and without any valid reason, the application seeking amendment of the plaint has been wrongly declined by the trial Court by passing impugned order dated 12.05.2022. For final adjudication of the case, aforesaid amendment is necessary. Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.05.2022 may be set aside by accepting the civil revision and his application to seek amendment of the plaint may be allowed as prayed for. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent did not advance any argument. 4. I have considered the arguments as well as the documents annexed with the present petition. Petitioner/plaintiff Jagtar Singh filed suit for joint possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.06.2018 regarding the land as detailed in the plaint. In para No.2 of the plaint, there is specific recital that earnest money was paid through cheque No.000072 of HDFC Bank, Branch Dhanaula in the presence of witnesses. Now by way of amendment the petitioner/plaintiff wants to add para No.3 by alleging that the cheque was returned and at the instance of SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CCCCRRRR----2222555522228888----2222000022222222 ----3333---- respondent/defendant she was given earnest money of Rs.1 lakh in cash. While passing the impugned order, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) appreciated the facts narrated in the plaint as well as in the application seeking amendment of the plaint. It is conceded that while giving legal notice to the defendant, it was mentioned that earnest money was paid through cheque. The reply to the said notice was also given by the respondent/defendant. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff consistently mentioned in the agreement to sell dated 25.06.2018, legal notice as well as in the plaint that earnest money was paid through cheque of HDFC Bank. Now by way of amendment, the petitioner/plaintiff wants to change his stand altogether. Learned trial Court rightly considered the facts of the case and their pleadings and rightly declined the application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. 5. In light of the aforesaid factual position, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 12.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa and the same is upheld. Consequently, the present civil revision, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 6. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 14.07.2026 snd Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.16 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document