Ombir vs Gram Panchayat And Others

CR-7444-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-7444-2025
Reserved on:-04.11.2026
Pronounced on:-11.11.2026
Uploaded on:- 12.11.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment
OMBIR ...Petitioner
Versus

GRAM PANCHAYAT AND ORS. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2-proforma respondent.
None for respondent No.3, despite service.
*
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the
order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Hathin, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule
17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been
dismissed.
2. The brief facts, as projected in the petition, are that the
petitioner instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents,
ANU
2026.11.12 09:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7444-2025 2
seeking to restrain them from demolishing his house situated in the suit
property. The petitioner claimed himself to be the owner and in possession
of the property measuring 8 kanals and 3 marlas as a co-sharer. During the
pendency of the suit, the house in question was allegedly demolished.
Consequently, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17
CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating an additional relief
of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to reconstruct the
demolished house. The said relief was sought as an alternative to the original
relief of permanent injunction.
3. The application was opposed by the respondents on the ground
that the proposed amendment would fundamentally change the nature and
character of the suit. It was specifically pleaded that respondent No.1, Gram
Panchayat, had no concern with the demolition of the house and that the
same had, in fact, been carried out by the Market Committee for
construction of a road. The Market Committee was not impleaded as a party
to the suit. It was further contended that the proposed amendment would
introduce a fresh cause of action, necessitate additional pleadings and
evidence and reopen the trial, which had already reached the stage of final
arguments.
4. The learned Trial Court, after considering the rival submissions,
dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 01.10.2025. It was
observed that the proposed relief of mandatory injunction directing
reconstruction of the demolished house was not merely an extension of the
original relief of permanent injunction but constituted an altogether different
relief based on a distinct cause of action. The learned Trial Court further
ANU
2026.11.12 09:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7444-2025 3
observed that adjudication of the proposed relief would require
determination of the circumstances in which the house was demolished and
the identity of the person or authority responsible for the same. Since the
Market Committee, which was alleged to have demolished the house, was
not a party to the proceedings, the proposed amendment would necessitate
fresh notices, pleadings and evidence. It was also noticed that the application
had been filed after more than five years of institution of the suit and at the
stage of final arguments, without furnishing any satisfactory explanation as
to why the amendment could not have been sought earlier. The learned Trial
Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner had not disclosed the
specific date, month or year when the demolition had taken place, thereby
making it difficult to examine the question of limitation.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached
this Court by way of the present revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the original relief of
permanent injunction had become infructuous on account of the demolition
of the house during the pendency of the suit. It is submitted that unless the
plaint is permitted to be amended, the petitioner would be left without any
effective remedy. The proposed amendment is stated to be necessary for
proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties, as the
petitioner merely seeks to incorporate an alternative relief of mandatory
injunction directing reconstruction of the demolished house. It is further
contended that the basic facts of the suit would remain unchanged and that
no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by allowing the proposed
ANU
2026.11.12 09:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7444-2025 4
amendment. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner does not
intend to lead any additional evidence and, therefore, the apprehension of
reopening of the trial is wholly unfounded. It is accordingly prayed that the
impugned order be set aside and the application for amendment of the plaint
be allowed.
7. Notice of the present petition was issued to the respondents.
Initially, learned counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No.1, the
contesting respondent. However, thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the
said respondent despite the matter being taken up for hearing. Accordingly,
the matter has been heard in the absence of representation on behalf of the
contesting respondent.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused
the paper book as well as the impugned order.
9. The controversy which arises for consideration in the present
petition is whether the learned Trial Court was justified in declining the
application for amendment of the plaint, whereby the petitioner sought to
introduce an additional relief of mandatory injunction directing the
respondents to reconstruct the house allegedly demolished during the
pendency of the suit.
10. At the outset, it would be apposite to notice that the original suit
instituted by the petitioner was for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain
the defendants from demolishing his house. The relief sought in the suit was,
therefore, preventive in nature and was intended to protect the existing
structure from demolition. However, by way of the proposed amendment,
the petitioner seeks to introduce a relief directing the respondents to
ANU
2026.11.12 09:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7444-2025 5
reconstruct the house which has already been demolished. Such a relief is
not merely an alternative formulation of the original prayer but requires
adjudication of additional and distinct questions arising out of the alleged
demolition.
11. It is true that amendments which are necessary for determining
the real questions in controversy between the parties ought ordinarily to be
permitted, particularly where the same are based upon subsequent
developments. The object of permitting amendment of pleadings is to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings and to enable the Court to adjudicate the dispute
effectively. However, such discretion is subject to the limitations prescribed
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Once the trial has commenced, the proviso to
Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates that the Court shall not allow an
application for amendment unless it comes to the conclusion that, despite the
exercise of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before
the commencement of trial.
12. In the present case, the application for amendment was
admittedly filed after more than five years of institution of the suit and when
the matter had already reached the stage of final arguments. Though the
petitioner has asserted that the house was demolished during the pendency of
the suit, no specific date, month or year of such demolition has been
disclosed either in the application or in the pleadings brought to the notice of
this Court. In the absence of such particulars, the petitioner has failed to
furnish any satisfactory explanation as to when the necessity for seeking the
proposed amendment arose and why the same was not sought at an earlier
stage. The requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule
ANU
2026.11.12 09:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7444-2025 6
17 CPC, therefore, cannot be said to have been satisfied merely on the basis
of a general assertion that the demolition took place during the pendency of
the proceedings.
13. There is another significant aspect which cannot be overlooked.
The respondents had specifically taken the stand before the learned Trial
Court that the house was not demolished by the Gram Panchayat but by the
Market Committee for the purpose of construction of a road. The Market
Committee is admittedly not a party to the suit. Thus, once the petitioner
seeks a direction for reconstruction of the demolished house, the Court
would necessarily be required to examine the circumstances in which the
demolition took place, the authority at whose instance it was carried out and
the responsibility, if any, of the defendants in that regard. These are matters
which were not part of the original controversy raised in the suit for
permanent injunction.
14. Consequently, allowing the proposed amendment would not
merely require incorporation of an additional prayer but would substantially
enlarge the scope of the proceedings. It may also necessitate consideration of
the question whether the Market Committee is a necessary party for
adjudication of the newly proposed relief. Such an exercise would inevitably
require additional pleadings and an opportunity to the parties to lead
evidence on the newly introduced controversy. The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner that no additional evidence is proposed to be led by
him would not, by itself, be sufficient to dispense with the right of the
respondents to controvert the new allegations and establish their respective
stands. The question of prejudice has to be examined from the perspective of
ANU
2026.11.12 09:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7444-2025 7
both sides and not merely on the basis of the petitioner's willingness to
proceed without leading further evidence.
15. The learned Trial Court has considered the relevant
circumstances, including the nature of the original relief, the nature of the
proposed amendment, the stage of the proceedings and the absence of
particulars regarding the alleged demolition. The conclusion that the
proposed amendment would fundamentally enlarge the scope of the suit and
necessitate adjudication of a fresh controversy cannot be said to suffer from
any patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
16. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is not intended to be exercised as a matter of course for
substituting the view of this Court for that of the subordinate Court,
particularly where the order under challenge reflects a consideration of the
relevant facts and the applicable legal principles. Unless the impugned order
suffers from a jurisdictional error or manifest perversity, interference in
exercise of such jurisdiction is not warranted.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground
to interfere with the order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Hathin. The learned Trial Court has rightly declined
the application for amendment of the plaint, particularly in view of the stage
at which the same was filed, the absence of satisfactory explanation
regarding due diligence and the nature of the additional relief sought to be
incorporated.
ANU
2026.11.12 09:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh

CR-7444-2025 8
18. Consequently, the present revision petition, being devoid of
merit, is dismissed . The impugned order dated 01.10.2025 is upheld.
19. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the original suit.
20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
11.11.2026 JUDGE
Anu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ANU
2026.11.12 09:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh