Simar Harleen Singh Vs Atul Sood Deceased through Lr and Another

T h e present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 o f the Constitution o f India seeking setting aside of t h e impugned order dated 16.05. 2 025 (Annexure P-1 ) passed by the learned Civil J u dge (Junior Division), Jalandh a r in C.S. No.1067 of 2019 titled as SimarHarlee n Singh Vs. AtulSood and an o ther whereby the ap p lication filed by the petitioner- p laintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 C PC for amendment of plaint, has been dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner int e r alia contends that the petiti o ner became owner in possession of House No.NF 2 10, Gali Dhikki Wali Tanda R oad, Jalandhar (for short suit property) by virtue o f sale deed dated 18.07.2011. He filed a suit f o r permanent injunction restra i ning the defendants, their ag e nts, attorneys, serv a nts and other representatives from interfering into peaceful and lawful exclusi v e possession of the plainti f f and further from illegally and unlawfully dis p ossessing the plaintiff and fro m damaging/demolishing any po r tion of the suit pro p erty i.e. ground floor compris i ng of two shops and room/sto r e as shown red in t he site plan and bounded as East: Street and Harbhajan, W est: Banarsi Dass, N orth: Shop of Bajaj Copy Hou s e, South: Gali. It is contended that

¶15

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶16

CR-5322-2025

¶17

-2-

¶18

during the cou r se of trial, the petitioner came to know that boundaries of the suit property as mentioned in the sale deed did n o t match with the site plan ann e xed with the plaint. The description of boundaries ought to have been East: Street/Gali and Harbhajan Singh (as the part suit property b eing ‘L’ shape touched the sh o p of Harbhajan Si n gh and part opens in the street/gali Dhikki Wali, W est: others/Banarsi Dass, North: street/circular ro a d also known as Tanda road and Harbhajan Sin g h on the North side and part o pens in the street/circular road also known as Ta n da Road, South: Surat Singh / others. The petitioner move d an application see k ing amendment of the plaint t o the above extent in the head n ote and para No.1 of the plaint, which has been d ismissed by the learned trial C ourt illegally and i n strict contravention to the set t led provisions of law. It is fu r ther contended that the nature of the suit has not changed, rather the amendme n t is sought qua description of boundaries as set o u t in the sale deed so that the lis at hand can be a djudicated properly. The pe t itioner moved the application for amendment a s soon as he came to kno w about the discrepancies in the description/di m ensions of boundaries as menti o ned in the plaint and, therefore, the learned trial C o urt ought not to have dismisse d the application seeking amend m ent of the plaint in a hyper technical manner. In s upport of his contentions, he r e lied upon the judg m ent passed by the Hon’ble S upreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another (2022) 16 SCC 1 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others (2006) 4 SCC 385.

¶19

H e ard.

¶20

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial C ourt has dismissed t he application seeking amendm e nt of plaint of the petitioner o n the

¶21

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶22

CR-5322-2025 -3-

¶23

ground that th e said amendment has been sou g ht after commencement of the t rial, as substantial c ross-examination of the petit i oner-plaintiff witness as PW1 has already been c o nducted and allowing the application seeking amendment of p l aint would cause p r ejudice to the defendants and w ould tantamount to filling up o f the lacunae by him. Even if the petitioner h as filed the amendment see k ing amendment of the plaint at a belated stage, t he learned trial Court should h ave allowed the sa m e, because in dealing with a p rayer for amendment of plead i ngs, the court shou l d avoid a hyper-technical app r oach especially in cases wher e the amendment w o uld enable the Court to pin- p ointedly consider the dispute and would aid in re n dering a more satisfactory dec i sion. The amendment sought i n the plaint by the p e titioner by way of application f iled under Order 6 Rule 17 C P C is with respect to description of boundaries of s u it property, which would enabl e the learned trial C ourt in proper adjudication of the matter. Furthermore, the respondents-de f endants would be having appr o priate opportunity to cross-exa m ine the petitioner-plaintiff in this regard.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned o rder dated 02.12.20 2 4 is set aside and the present p e tition is allowed.

¶25

	(A	MARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE L)
August 08, 202 5
Pankaj*	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶26

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Simar Harleen Singh v. Atul Sood Deceased through Lr and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simar Harleen Singh v. Atul Sood Deceased through Lr and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prfo.Yog Raj Handa Vs Improvement Trust Bathinda

United India Insuance Company Ltd. Vs Vimal Rani and Ors.

Mubina and Others Vs Nagendra Yadav and Others

Dhani Ram Garg Vs Paramjit Singh

Ashok Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar and Others

Nathu Ram & Anr. Vs Bakshish Singh & Ors.