Rameshwar v. Savitri

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2026CR/5654/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CR-5654-2016 (O&M), Nidhi Gupta J, 22.04.2026: amendment of plaint Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; impleadment Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; mutation sanctioned during subsistence of Supreme Court stay void ab initio nullity; subsequent events; due diligence; necessary parties State of Haryana Tehsildar Halka Patwari; multiplicity of litigation; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu; Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi; gift deed versus oral sale deed, Murthal; revision against dismissal of amendment application after commencement of trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P-5) set aside; petitioner permitted to amend his plaint and implead the proposed defendants (State of Haryana, Tehsildar, Halka Patwari). Pending application(s) disposed of. ¶¶77

Rameshwar Vs Savitri — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition should be allowed and the impugned order dated 12.07.2016 dismissing the applications for amendment of plaint and impleadment be set aside. +2 more

¶¶45

Court's answer

The court found merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner against the dismissal of the amendment and impleadment applications.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court's first objection (that the plaint did not mention Mutation No. 12568) fails because the petitioner categorically stated in the application that the mutation came to his knowledge only after filing of the suit on 16.04.2012, so he could not have disclosed it in the plaint.

¶¶52

Key takeaways

Since Mutation No. 12568 was sanctioned on 27.04.2011 during the subsistence of the Supreme Court stay order dated 20.08.2010, any entry made in direct defiance of a stay from the Apex Court is void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of law; incorporating this challenge is essential.ratio¶¶56
The Trial Court's second reasoning (failure to disclose and prove the exact date of knowledge) is not a sufficient ground to reject the application; the petitioner specifically stated he discovered the mutation in May 2013 and thereafter pursued correction application (31.05.2013) and reminder (21.09.2015) before seeking amendment.ratio¶¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (Article 227) allowed; order dated 12.07.2016 of Civil Judge (JD), Sonepat dismissing the plaintiff's applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (amendment) and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (impleadment) set aside. Mutation No. 12568 (27.04.2011) was sanctioned in favour of the respondent while the Supreme Court's stay order of 20.08.2010 was in active operation; the Court held that any entry made in direct defiance of an Apex Court stay is void ab initio and a nullity, making its incorporation essential. The plaintiff discovered the mutation only after instituting the 2012 suit (via jamabandi of 29.05.2013) and pursued administrative correction from 2013 to 2015; issues having been framed only on 15.12.2015, the 05.04.2016 application involved no lack of due diligence. Impleading the State of Haryana, the Tehsildar and the Halka Patwari was held necessary since a decree against a private individual cannot compel the Revenue Department to restore public records. Reliance placed on Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi; merits of the amendments left to the Trial Court.

¶1

CR-5654-2016 (O&M) 1 of 10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

136 CR-5654-2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.04.2026

Rameshwar

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Savitri

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present:Mr. S.P.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶14

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff laying challenged to the order dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat; whereby application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has been dismissed.

¶15

Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -

¶16

24.01.1977: Vide original allotment, Gram Panchayat, Murthal allotted plot No. 211/16/26 (100 sq. yds) to the Petitioner via Gift Deed No. 9059.

¶17

DIVYANSHI 2026.04.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CR-5654-2016 (O&M) 2 of 10

¶19

07.03.1995: Alleged oral Sale Deed was executed in favor of Respondent No. 1 for Rs.20,000. Petitioner alleged that signatures were obtained on blank papers while he was intoxicated during his daughter's wedding.

¶20

04.03.2005: Respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 441/2005 for permanent injunction based on the Oral Sale Deed dated 07.03.1995.

¶21

31.07.2008: Learned Civil Judge dismissed suit of the respondent No. 1 and findings were returned in favor of the Petitioner.

¶22

17.04.2010 : However, Additional District Judge allowed the appeal of Respondent No. 1, while upholding the oral Sale Deed dated 07.03.1995.

¶23

30.04.2010 : The petitioner challenged the above said judgment and decree of the learned ADJ before this Court by way of RSA-1694-2010; which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.4.2010. 20.08.2010: The said judgment dated 30.4.2010 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP No. 22642/2010. Vide order dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure P-2), the operation of the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2010, was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶24

27.04.2011: On 27.04.2011, Mutation (Intkal) No. 12568 was sanctioned in favour of respondent No.1 while the Supreme Court stay order was in active operation.

¶25

12.04.2012: Vide order dated 12.04.2012, SLP No. 22642/2010 was dismissed while granting liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the remedies in accordance with law.

¶26

DIVYANSHI 2026.04.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CR-5654-2016 (O&M) 3 of 10

¶28

16.04.2012: Petitioner/plaintiff then filed instant Civil Suit dated

¶29

16.04.2012 (Annexure P-1) for declaration and cancellation of oral Sale Deed dated 07.03.1995, and permanent injunction.

¶30

29.05.2013 : Petitioner obtained a computer-generated jamabandi revealing Mutation No. 12568. The entry was found to be "crossed and cancelled" by the Patwari.

¶31

31.05.2013: Petitioner filed an application for correction of revenue records with the Tehsildar vide Diary No. 4020, dated 03.06.2013.

¶32

21.09.2015 : Petitioner submitted a formal reminder (Diary No. 3002) to the Tehsildar regarding the pending correction.

¶33

15.12.2015: On 15.12.2015, issues were framed.

¶34

05.04.2016: As no action was taken by the revenue authorities in the application for correction submitted by the petitioner, Petitioner moved instant application (Annexure P-3) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

¶35

28.04.2016: Respondent/defendant had filed reply dated 28.04.2016 (Annexure P-4) to the above said applications.

¶36

12.07.2016: Vide the impugned order dated 12.07.2016, the said applications of the petitioner have been dismissed.

¶37

Hence, present Revision Petition.

¶38

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

¶39

that impugned applications were necessitated on account of the fact that vide order dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure P-2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed stay of the operation of the impugned judgment.

¶40

DIVYANSHI 2026.04.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CR-5654-2016 (O&M) 4 of 10

¶42

However, during the pendency of the said stay granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court, respondent had got sanctioned the impugned mutation. It is submitted that without appreciating the fact that the applications (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner was necessitated due to the subsequent events which are essential for the proper adjudication of the issue at hand, the learned Trial Court has mechanically dismissed the applications vide impugned order on the ground that said applications have been filed after commencement of trial and that the petitioner had failed to make out due diligence. Learned counsel submits that said reasoning of the learned Trial Court is without basis and based on a misappreciation of the matter.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in

¶44

actual fact, the said act of the respondent in getÝng sanctioned the Mutation dated 27.04.2011 during the subsistence of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, amounts to Contempt of Court.

¶45

Hence, it is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be allowed; and the impugned order be set aside.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that issues in the present case were framed on 15.12.2015; whereas the present application has been filed by the petitioner thereafter on 05.04.2016. It is submitted that it is established position in law that amendment cannot be sought after trial has begun. As such, the

¶47

DIVYANSHI 2026.04.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

CR-5654-2016 (O&M) 5 of 10

¶49

impugned order suffers from no error and the present Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶50

No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

¶51

Perusal of the impugned order shows that learned Civil Judge has dismissed the applications of the petitioner primarily on account of the following 3 reasons that: (a) “In the plaint itself, the plaintiff has not talked about the disputed mutation No. 12568 in favour of the defendant”; (b) plaintiff has failed to prove “ any particular date of knowledge.......”, therefore, bonafide intention of the petitioner is not clear ; and that (c) “The present application has been moved on 05.04.2016 after a lapse of considerable time from the date of framing of issues.”

¶52

The first objection taken by learned Trial Court as also the respondent/defendant to the present application, is that the petitioner has not mentioned the impugned Mutation No. 12568 dated 27.04.2011 in his plaint. However, perusal of the instant application dated 05.04.2016 (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner shows that petitioner has categorically stated therein that impugned Mutation No. 12568 dated 27.04.2011 came to the knowledge of the petitioner only after filing of the present suit on 16.04.2012. Thus, Petitioner could not have disclosed about the impugned Mutation in the plaint as, he has discovered about the same only after filing of the suit. Petitioner has

¶53

DIVYANSHI 2026.04.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶54

CR-5654-2016 (O&M) 6 of 10

¶55

further stated in the instant application that after discovering about the said Mutation no.12568, Petitioner has approached the concerned revenue ofÏcers vide formal correction application on 31.05.2013 (Diary No. 4020) and a final reminder on 21.09.2015 (Diary No. 3002) before seeking this amendment. Thus, the averment of the petitioner that he has discovered about the impugned mutation only after filing of suit is further substantiated from the above facts stated in the application.

¶56

Further, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent that Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 22642/2010 titled as Rameshwar vs. Savitri had categorically directed that “ Meanwhile there will be stay of operation of impugned judgment.” Admittedly, the said Mutation No. 12568 has been sanctioned on 27.04.2011 i.e. during the subsistence of the stay granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, this administrative act was performed by the revenue authorities in blatant violation of a Supreme Court stay order dated 20.08.2010 which was in active operation at the time. Any entry made in direct defiance of a stay from the Apex Court is void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of law; therefore, incorporating this challenge is essential not only to protect the sanctity of judicial orders; but also to bring on record pertinent subsequent events which had transpired and which were germane to the issue at hand.

¶57

Second reasoning of learned Civil Judge that petitioner has failed to disclose and prove the exact date of knowledge, is not sufÏcient

¶58

DIVYANSHI 2026.04.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

CR-5654-2016 (O&M) 7 of 10

¶60

ground to reject the application; especially as it is not disputed that impugned Mutation has been sanctioned during the subsistence of subsequent order of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Perusal of Annexure P-3 further reveals that petitioner has specifically mentioned therein that he discovered about the mutation in May 2013; and after discovering regarding the Mutation, the petitioner has made a formal correction application on 31.05.2013 (Diary No. 4020) and a final reminder on 21.09.2015 (Diary No. 3002) to the concerned revenue authorities before seeking this amendment.

¶61

It is the case of the petitioner that he discovered about the mutation entry in May 2013 through a computer-generated jamabandi. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was initially misled by the Halka Patwari, who represented the entry as a mere "computer network error". This necessitated the filing of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, to implead the State of Haryana, the Tehsildar, and the Halka Patwari being necessary parties to this litigation. I find merit in the contention of the petitioner that a decree against a private individual alone cannot compel the Revenue Department to restore public records. Their presence is essential for the Court to grant the relief of restoring the revenue records to their original condition and to ensure a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute.

¶62

The third reasoning of the learned Trial Court that application has been moved on 05.04.2016 “ After lapse of consideration time from the date of framing of issues” is also misconceived as admittedly, issues

¶63

DIVYANSHI 2026.04.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶64

CR-5654-2016 (O&M) 8 of 10

¶65

were framed barely 3 months previously on 15.12.2015. Further, as evident from the facts noted above, far from being negligent, the Petitioner spent 2013 through 2015 pursuing administrative remedies.

¶66

It is also relevant to note that the proposed amendment does not alter the basic structure or cause of action of the suit. The primary dispute remains the ownership of the property based on the 1977 Gift Deed versus the forged 1995 Sale Deed. The challenge to the mutation is a consequential and formal amendment necessitated by subsequent events discovered during the pendency of the suit, which provides a complete perspective of the dispute to the Trial Court. In passing the impugned order, the Trial Court failed to apply the settled law in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (S.C.) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2224 which dictates that amendments based on subsequent events should be allowed liberally. Since the Respondent retains the right to file a rebuttal and any perceived delay can be compensated by costs, there is no "grave prejudice" caused to the defense. Denying the amendment would lead to a multiplicity of litigation, which the law explicitly seeks to avoid. 16. Further, the said amendment and impleadment is necessary to determine the real controversy at hand. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v.

¶67

K.K. Modi, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 120400, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically directed that “ Amendment of pleadings - It is mandatory on court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.”

¶68

DIVYANSHI 2026.04.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

CR-5654-2016 (O&M) 9 of 10

¶70

It is further held that: –

¶71

“16. As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without deciding whether such an amendment is necessary has expressed certain opinion and entered into a discussion on merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the Court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. It is setled by catena of decisions of thist Court that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court.” (emphasis supplied)

¶72

The application P-3 shows that petitioner has expanded upon

¶73

and clarified regarding facts which are related to the dispute between the parties. In this regard reference is also be made to judgments of this Court in Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha v. Sita Devi (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1713347; CR-5151-2019 (O&M) titled as “Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha (Registered) Gaushala Bazar Hoshiarpur Vs. Sita Devi”; CR-51632019 (O&M) titled as “Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha (Registered) Gaushala Bazar Hoshiarpur Vs.Gulwinder Singh” and CR-5168-2019 (O&M) titled as “Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha (Registered) Gaushala

¶74

Bazar Hoshiarpur Vs. Gulwinder Singh”

¶75

DIVYANSHI 2026.04.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶76

CR-5654-2016 (O&M) 10 of 10

¶77

As such, in view of the discussion hereinabove, this Revision Petition is allowed; and impugned order dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P-5) is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to amend his plaint and implead the proposed defendants.

¶78

It is trite law that it is not open for this Court to go into the merits of the amendments sought to be brought about by the petitioner, which will be considered by the learned Trial Court. Hence, anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶79

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶80

22.04.2026			(NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi			JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶81

DIVYANSHI 2026.04.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Dismissal of the petitioner/plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and impleadment of proposed defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC¶¶14
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat · 12.07.2016
Prior proceeding
24.01.1977: Gram Panchayat, Murthal allotted plot No. 211/16/26 (100 sq. yds) to the petitioner via Gift Deed No. 9059¶¶16
Prior proceeding
07.03.1995: Alleged oral sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No. 1 for Rs. 20,000; petitioner alleges signatures obtained on blank papers while intoxicated¶¶19
Prior proceeding
04.03.2005: Respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 441/2005 for permanent injunction based on the oral sale deed¶¶20
Prior proceeding
31.07.2008: Civil Judge dismissed respondent No. 1's suit with findings in favour of the petitioner¶¶21
Prior proceeding
17.04.2010: Additional District Judge allowed respondent No. 1's appeal, upholding the oral sale deed¶¶22
Prior proceeding
30.04.2010: Petitioner's RSA-1694-2010 against the ADJ judgment dismissed¶¶23
Prior proceeding
20.08.2010: Supreme Court in SLP No. 22642/2010 stayed operation of the judgment dated 30.4.2010¶¶23
Prior proceeding
27.04.2011: Mutation (Intkal) No. 12568 sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 1 while the Supreme Court stay was in active operation¶¶24
Prior proceeding
12.04.2012: SLP No. 22642/2010 dismissed with liberty to exhaust remedies in accordance with law¶¶25
Prior proceeding
16.04.2012: Petitioner filed the instant civil suit for declaration, cancellation of the oral sale deed and permanent injunction¶¶29
Prior proceeding
29.05.2013: Computer-generated jamabandi revealed Mutation No. 12568, entry found crossed and cancelled by the Patwari¶¶30
Prior proceeding
31.05.2013: Petitioner filed correction application with the Tehsildar (Diary No. 4020)¶¶31
Prior proceeding
21.09.2015: Formal reminder (Diary No. 3002) to the Tehsildar regarding pending correction¶¶32
Prior proceeding
15.12.2015: Issues framed in the suit¶¶33
Prior proceeding
05.04.2016: Petitioner moved application (Annexure P-3) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC¶¶34
Prior proceeding
28.04.2016: Respondent/defendant filed reply (Annexure P-4) to the applications¶¶35

Rameshwar v. Savitri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar v. Savitri

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

Sukhwinderpal Singh Vs Mohinder Kaur and Others

Santosh Devi and Anr. Vs Chetan Singh and Ors.

Sudesh Kumari and Anr. Vs Ajit Singh and Others

Sushila and Others Vs Rajesh and Another

Shiv Kumar Vs Kuldeep Singh

Satwant Singh Vs Vimal Kumar Setia and Ors.