Abhinav Sihag through Attorney Rajshree Vs Anita Jyani

Th e present civil revision p e tition has been filed by the petitioner/plain t iff assailing the order dated 03. 0 9.2024 passed by the learned C ivil Judge (Junior D ivision), Fazilka, whereby the a pplication under Order VI Rul e 17 of the Code o f Civil Procedure, 1908 (for sh o rt, ‘CPC’) for amendment of the plaint has been d ismissed.

¶14

BRIEF FACTS

¶15

Br i ef facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff filed a s uit on 29.09.2020 s eeking a declaration that he is t he owner in possession of the suit property and t h at the sale deed dated 15.0 6 .2020 executed in favour of the defendant is n ull and void on account of fraud and non-payment of s ale consideration. T he defendant, in her written st a tement, pleaded that the entire s ale consideration h a d been paid and the cheque m e ntioned in the sale deed had been

¶16

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-5433-2024 (O&M) - 2 -

¶18

duly encashed i n the plaintiff’s account.An ap p lication under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecti o n of the plaint was filed by the defendant, which was dismisse d on 15.01.2024. Th e reafter, the plaintiff moved an a pplication dated 08.08.2024 u n der Order VI Rule 1 7 CPC seeking amendment of t h e plaint to add an alternative r e lief of recovery of sale consideration of ₹30,35,0 0 0 with interest, in case the m ain relief of decl a ration was not granted.The l earned trial court dismissed the application holding that the proposed ame n dment introduced a distinct a nd inconsistent ca u se of action, thereby changing t h e nature of the suit.

¶19

Submissions Of Counsel For The Parties

¶20

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amendmen t is only clarificato r y and seeks an alternative relie f based on the same transaction. I t is necessary to av o id multiplicity of proceedings.

¶21

Pe r contra , learned counsel for th e respondent contends that the r e lief of recovery of m oney is based on a separate c a use of action and is fundament a lly different from a declaratory suit. He further contends that allowing such an amendment wo u ld alter the very character of t he suit and cause prejudice to the defendant. He further submits that the trial court has rightly dismissed the application.

¶22

I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefull y .

¶23

Findings

¶24

It i s a settled proposition of law that a relief for declaration a n d a relief for recov e ry of money are legally distinc t in nature and character. A suit for declaration det e rmines status or rights in resp e ct of property, whereas a suit for recovery is a m oney claim requiring separate v aluation, court fee, and evide n ce. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CR-5433-2024 (O&M) - 3 -

¶26

An alternative r elief that is totally different fr o m the main relief, and not me r ely ancillary, cann o t be introduced by way of a m endment, as it would amoun t to substituting a n e w cause of action and changing the nature of the suit. 7. In the present case the original s u it is for a declaration that the s ale deed is null and void. The proposed amendmen t seeks a money decree for reco v ery of ₹30,35,000 with interest in the alternat i ve. This is not an ancillary or consequential r elief but a wholly different r elief requiring distinct pleadi n gs, valuation, cour t fee, and evidence. The caus e of action for a recovery sui t is different from t hat of a declaratory suit; co m bining the two would amoun t to converting the s uit into one of an entirely diff e rent character. Thus, an alterna t ive relief of recove r y cannot be allowed to be intro d uced by way of amendment w h ere it is founded o n a cause of action that is disti n ct from, and inconsistent with, the original cause of action in the plaint.

¶27

8 Th e re is no illegality in the impu g ned order dated 03.09.2024 pa s sed by the learned t rial Court. The same is, here b y, upheld and the present revi s ion petition is dism i ssed.

¶28

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

¶29

August 13, 202 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶30

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Abhinav Sihag through Attorney Rajshree v. Anita Jyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav Sihag through Attorney Rajshree v. Anita Jyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Krishan Lal Bhatia Vs Hardyal Singh

Varinder Pal Singh and Anr. Vs Smt Simrajit Kaur and Ors.

Harbans Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Village Kazampur etc.

Kulwant Rai and Ors. Vs Pargat Singh and Ors.

Fakir Singh Vs Munshi Singh Deceased Th Lrs

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Balwinder Kaur and Ors.