Balbir Singh Vs Vishwjeet Singh

Th e present civil revision petition h as been filed under Article 22 7 of the Constitutio n of India read with Section 1 5 1 of the Code of Civil Proce d ure challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 21.11.2 0 24 passed by the l e arned Civil Judge (Junior Divi s ion), Kurukshetra in Civil Suit N o. 1396 of 2023, w hereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 R ule 17 CPC for am e ndment of the plaint has been a l lowed. The petitioner seeks set t ing aside of the sai d order primarily on the groun d that the amendment permitte d by the trial Court r esults in introducing an entirel y new case and materially alters the nature of the su i t.

¶15

Th e case of the petitioner, as arg u ed, is that the plaintiff-respon d ent had already ex e cuted a registered sale deed d a ted 27.03.2023 in his favour f o r a total consideration of ₹84,72,000, out of whi c h the petitioner had already p aid ₹79,72,000 thr o ugh cheques at the time of e x ecution of the sale deed, and the remaining amo u nt of ₹5 lakh was duly paid i n cash, which fact is stated to be

¶16

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.05 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-8041-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶18

supported by a ff idavits and other documents. It is further the case of the petiti o ner that the plainti f f had suppressed these materia l facts at the time of filing the suit and has now, b y moving the application for a mendment, attempted to set u p a completely ne w case by relying upon an agree m ent to sell dated 12.03.2023, w h ich was never refe r red to in the registered sale de e d. According to the petitioner, the amendment is m ala fide and is intended only to raise a new story with the object of extracting addit i onal money from the petitione r . It is submitted that the trial C o urt ignored the ma t erial on record, including the s a le deed, the alleged agreement, the cheques and a f fidavits, and proceeded to all o w the amendment contrary to the settled principl e s governing the grant of amend m ents. The petitioner contends t hat the order suffer s from patent illegality and liabl e to be set aside. 3. Th e trial Court, while allowing th e application, considered the na t ure of the amendm e nt sought and held that it was necessary for determining the r eal controversy be t ween the parties. It further ob s erved that the suit is at an in i tial stage and the p r oposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit. T he court also note d that merits of the claim are n ot to be examined at the stag e of deciding an am e ndment application, and allowe d the same. 4. Le a rned counsel for the petitioner r eiterated before this Court that the amendment pe r mitted by the trial Court amo u nts to allowing the responden t to introduce an e n tirely fresh cause of action w hich did not find mention in the original plaint. It is argued that such an amen d ment is impermissible in law, t hat the facts soug h t to be introduced are after t houghts, and that permitting the respondent to a mend the plaint would cause s erious prejudice to the petitio n er, who has alread y paid the entire sale considerati o n. The petitioner contends that the

¶19

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.05 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CR-8041-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

¶21

trial Court mis d irected itself by failing to ap p reciate the documentary evidence placed on recor d and by exercising its discretio n irregularly.

¶22

Si n ce the question involved rela t es only to the correctness o f an interlocutory or d er passed in the course of trial, and the matter turns solely on the applicability of the principles governing amend m ents under Order 6 Rule 17 C P C, no notice was c onsidered necessary to be iss u ed to the respondent, particul a rly because the ma t ter is short and relates to the e x ercise of discretionary jurisdic t ion by the trial Cou r t.

¶23

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for t he petitioner and after perusing the record, this C o urt is of the considered view that no ground is made out for interference in t he impugned order. The amend m ent sought through the applica t ion before the tri a l Court relates to facts alre a dy forming part of the bro a der transaction bet w een the parties and appears to h ave been allowed to enable pr o per adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court c o rrectly noted that the suit is a t an initial stage an d no prejudice would be cause d to the petitioner, who shall have ample opportu n ity to rebut the amended plead i ngs by filing an additional wri t ten statement and by leading evidence. The objecti o n that the amendment introduc e s a new story or a new cause of action is not te n able at this stage, as the scop e of scrutiny while considering an amendment is limited, and the genuineness or correctness of the facts sought to be add e d cannot be adjudicated at t his preliminary sta g e. The discretion exercised by t h e trial Court appears proper an d in consonance wit h the settled principles that am e ndments necessary for determi n ing the real questio n in controversy should ordinari l y be allowed, particularly when the trial has not pro g ressed and the nature of the suit is not fundamentally altered.

¶24

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.05 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CR-8041-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

¶26

To my mind, the impugned ord e r does not reflect any perver s ity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranti n g interference under Article 22 7 of the Constitutio n of India. The trial Court has a cted within its jurisdiction and has exercised its d i scretion judiciously. The appr e hension of the petitioner that the amendment wi l l prejudice his case is unfo u nded, as all rights and reme d ies available to hi m in law remain open, includin g the right to contest the amen d ed pleadings on m e rits.

¶27

In view of the above discussio n , this Court finds no groun d to interfere with t he impugned order. The prese n t revision petition is accordi n gly dismissed.

¶28

Nothing stated herein shall be c o nstrued as an expression on the merits of the m atter, which shall remain o p en before the trial Court to be adjudicated in accordance with law.

¶29

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

¶30

December 05, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶31

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.05 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Balbir Singh v. Vishwjeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh v. Vishwjeet Singh

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

Surinder Nath Vs Naranjan Dass

Punjab State Civil Supplies Vs Mulkh Raj

Lal Singh Vs Tsatynaryan Sharma

Dr.K.Dc.Bhatia Vs Vinod Kumar Garg

Prem Lata and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish Kailey Vs Balbir Kaur