Sarika Arora Vs Capt. Harjit Singh Toor and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sarika Arora Vs Capt. Harjit Singh Toor and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether, at the post-evidence stage of the trial, amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC could be permitted in the absence of any plea or proof of due diligence. +2 more

Court's answer

Applying Vidyabai & Ors v. Padmalatha, the Court held that although the trial had commenced (evidence concluded, case at rebuttal/final-arguments stage), no due diligence had been pleaded or proved showing the matter could not have been raised before commencement of trial; hence the amendment of the written statement could not be allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The defendant Sarika's own affidavit evidence reiterated the recital that Rs.50,000/- had been paid in advance, which the Court held belies the defendant's version that the written-statement recital was merely inadvertently typed.

Key takeaways

The learned lower court rightly dismissed the amendment application vide order dated 28.05.2025; the impugned order is upheld and the present revision petition stands dismissed.ratio¶6
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CR-3787-2025 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Mandeep Pannu J., decided 11.08.2025. Revision petition challenging the order dated 28.05.2025 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar Mohali, dismissing the petitioner/defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend her written statement by deleting the recital that Rs.50,000/- had been paid in advance (allegedly typed 'inadvertently'). With the evidence of both sides concluded and the case at the rebuttal/final-arguments stage, and applying Vidyabai & Ors v. Padmalatha ((2009) 2 SCC 409) — under which post-commencement-of-trial amendment requires plea/proof of due diligence, none of which was made — and noting that the defendant's own affidavit evidence repeated the Rs.50,000/- advance recital, thereby belying the claim of inadvertence, the Court upheld the dismissal and dismissed the revision petition; pending application(s) stood disposed of.

CR-3787-2025 (O&M)

- 1 -

118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CR-3787-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 11.08.2025

Sarika Arora ....Petitioner

VERSUS

Capt. Harjit Sin g h Toor and Another ....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: M r . Mayank Sharma, Advocate fo r the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

Ch a llenge in the present revisi o n petition is to the order d a ted 28.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Ci v il Judge (Senior Division), D era Bassi, District S AS Nagar Mohali, vide which application under Order 6 Rul e 17 read with Sect i on 151 of the Code of Civil P rocedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C P C) seeking amend m ent of written statement filed b y petitioner/defendant is dismi s sed by the learned L ower Court.

Le a rned counsel for the petition e r/defendant contends that in the written stateme n t it has been inadvertently men t ioned that “the respondent has p aid an amount of R s.50,000/- in advance to the p etitioner” whereas the above s aid statement is fa c tually incorrect and was mista k enly typed due to oversight as no such advance a m ount of Rs.50,000/- was ever paid by the petitioner/tenant to the landlord. Ther e fore, the need arose to file an application under Order 6 Rul e 17 CPC before th e learned Trial Court. Howeve r , learned Trial Court has illeg a lly dismissed the a pplication of the petitioner/de f endant without passing a deta i led TRIPTI SAINIorder. It is a se t tled law that the amendments, w hich are necessary, in controv e rsy 2025.08.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-3787-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

are to be allo w ed. Thus, in the absence of a reasoned and speaking order, the impugned orde r is liable to be set aside.

Le a rned counsel for respondent N o .1, on the other hand, submits t hat the trial has rea c hed at the stage of final argum e nts and evidence has already been concluded. Hence, the amendment cannot be allowed. He further submits that the learned Lower C ourt has rightly dismissed the application for amendment ha v ing been filed at t h e fag-end of the trial and also on the ground that it amount s to denying of the f act admitted by defendant whic h cannot be called a clerical erro r .

I h a ve considered the rival submis s ions and perused the record of the case.

It is not in dispute that the evidence of both the sides stand conclu d ed and the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence, if a ny, otherwise for final argume n ts, when the prese n t application was moved. Ho n ’ble Supreme Court in the cas e of Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Another [ 2009(2) SCC 409] has held that after commencement of trial, an amendment can be a llowed only if the Court comes t o a conclusion that despite due diligence, the part y could not have raised the m a tter before commen c ement of trial. In the present c a se, no such due diligence has been pleaded or proved. Rather, it is submitted by learned counsel for defendant tha t by way of amend m ent in written statement, he p roposes to delete the fact tha t an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid in advance to the landlord on the ground th a t it was inadverten t ly typed. However, learned co u nsel for respondent has place d on record a photoc o py of evidence of defendant – S arika, by way of affidavit, whe r ein she has reiterat e d the above-said version of ha v ing paid Rs.50,000/- in advanc e to the petitioner. Thus, it belies the version of defendant that this fact w as

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-3787-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

inadvertently m entioned in the written statem e nt, when she herself has reiter a ted this fact in her e vidence.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned lower c ourt has rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Ru l e 7 CPC, vide orde r dated 28.05.2025. Hence, the same is upheld and accordingly the present revisio n petition stands dismissed.

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

August 11, 202 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document