Allowed¶23

Narinder Singh v. M/S Aggarwal and Sons

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Feb 2026CR/1534/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Narinder Singh v. M/S Aggarwal and Sons, CR-1534-2020 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 11.02.2026 by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Archana Puri. Revision against trial Court order dated 07.02.2020 dismissing application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend written statement correcting quantity of potatoes from 650 quintals to 5650 quintals. Held: error seemingly a computer error, bonafide; impugned order set aside; revision petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the revision petition is hereby allowed. ¶23

Narinder Singh Vs M/S Aggarwal and Sons — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

CR-1534-2020 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.152

¶5

CR-1534-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.02.2026

NARINDER SINGH

....Petitioner

Versus

M/S AGGARWAL AND SONS

¶10

.....Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶12

Present:Mr. Avikaran Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Vikram K. Bishnoi, Advocate for Mr. Mandeep K. Saajan, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 07.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned trial Court, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, filed by the petitioner (who is defendant before learned trial Court), was dismissed.

¶17

In pursuance of notice issued, the respondent made appearance through counsel.

¶18

It is pertinent to mention that the proposed amendment, is with regard to the correction, to be made in the extent of quantity of potatoes,

¶19

SONU 2026.02.12 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

¶21

CR-1534-2020 (O&M)

¶22

mentioned in the written statement, copy whereof is Annexure P-3. Therein, the quantity has been mentioned as 650 quintals, instead of 5650 quintals. This is seemingly a computer error. Moreover, in the connected case between the parties, relating to the same subject, wherein the son of the petitioner was the plaintiff, the amendment has been allowed, copy whereof is Annexure P-6.

¶23

Considering the amendment sought to be a computer error, which is seemingly bonafide and had crept into the pleading, the impugned order is set aside and the revision petition is hereby allowed.

¶24

11.02.2026		(ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE
Himanshu Vats
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶25

SONU 2026.02.12 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Narinder Singh v. M/S Aggarwal and Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narinder Singh v. M/S Aggarwal and Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Bala and Another Vs Raman Kumar

Dr Anjali Ravi Ghanghas Vs Dr Ravi Ramphal Ghanghas

Nandini Vs Rohit Singh

Hardeep Kaur Vs Jaswinder Singh

Amandeep Kaur Vs Jiwanjot Singh

Avinash Kaur Kundra Vs Gursagar Preet Singh