Surinder Singh Vs Lalit Saroch

Th e present civil revision pet i tion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for settin g aside the order dated 01.11.2 0 25 passed by the l e arned Additional Civil Judge ( S enior Division), Dasuya, wher e by the application f iled by the respondent–landlor d under Order VI Rule 17 read w ith Section 151 CP C for amendment of the petition and site plan has been allowed. 2. Th e petitioner assails the impugne d order primarily on the ground t hat the amendment permitted by the Trial Court amounts to a substantive change in the pleadings, with d raws earlier admissions, and m aterially prejudices the defenc e of the tenant. Reliance has been placed upon v arious judgments of the Hon ’ ble Supreme Cour t , including Vidyabai v. Padmalatha (2009) 2 SCC 409 , Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills v. Ladha Ram (1977) 1 SCC 728, Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy (2009) 10 SCC 84 and allied precedents , to contend that a m endments which alter the nature of the case or defeat accrued ri g hts ought not to be p ermitted.

¶14

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CR-9438-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶16

Si n ce the short controversy is invo l ved in the present revision petit i on,

¶17

no notice is req u ired to be issued.

¶18

Th i s Court has considered the su b missions of counsel for petiti o ner and has carefully perused the record.

¶19

A p erusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Trial C o urt has recorded a c lear finding that the amendmen t sought is confined to correctio n of the description of boundaries in the headnote, prayer clause and site plan, w h ich had crept in d u e to an inadvertent and typog r aphical error. The Trial Court has further found t h at the identity of the demised p r emises remains unchanged and t hat the amendmen t neither introduces a new ca u se of action nor alters the b a sic structure of the e jectment petition.

¶20

Th e judgments relied upon by t h e petitioner are not in disput e as propositions of law, however, their applicatio n to the facts of the present cas e is clearly misplac e d. In Vidyabai’s case (supra) , the amendment was sought a fter commencement of trial without due diligence a n d resulted in introduction of a n ew factual foundati o n. In Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills case (supra) , the prop o sed amendment sought to withdraw categorical ad m issions already made. Similarl y , in Revajeetu Builders & Developers case (supra) , the amendment fundament a lly altered the natu r e of the claim and caused seri o us prejudice to the opposite p a rty. The factual ma t rix in the present case is entir e ly different. Here, the amend m ent neither withdra w s any admission forming the f o undation of the case nor introd u ces an inconsistent o r mutually destructive plea. 7. O n the contrary, the correction permitted by the Trial Cour t is clarificatory in nature, intended to bring th e pleadings and the site pla n in consonance wi t h each other. The Trial Court has also rightly observed that the

¶21

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CR-9438-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

¶23

amendment wa s sought at an early stage of th e proceedings and that any poss i ble inconvenience t o the petitioner can be adequately taken care of during trial. No irreversible prejudice or failure of justice has been demonstrated. 8. It is well settled that the superviso r y jurisdiction under Article 22 7 of the Constitutio n of India is to be exercised sp a ringly and only in cases of pa t ent illegality, perv e rsity or jurisdictional error. T h e impugned order does not suffer from any such i nfirmity. The Trial Court has e xercised its discretion judiciously, keeping in vie w the settled principles governin g amendment of pleadings, and t his Court finds no g round to substitute its own vie w merely because another view m ay also be possible.

¶24

In view of the above discussio n , this Court is of the consid e red opinion that the impugned order does not call f o r interference under Article 22 7 of the Constitutio n of India. Accordingly, the present civil revision petitio n is dismissed.

¶25

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

¶26

December 22, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶27

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Surinder Singh v. Lalit Saroch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh v. Lalit Saroch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal and Ors. Vs Ruldu Ram and Ors.

Jitender Bhatia Vs Bimla Ahuja and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra Vs Sukhbir Singh

Nanhi and Ors. Vs Maha Singh and Ors.

Zile Singh Sine Deceased through Legal Representatives Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rohit Sharma Vs Abhishek Mahindra and Others