Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Harsajjan Singh And Anr

CR-8339-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 134 )
CR-8339-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2026
ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL
… Petitioner
Versus
HARSAJJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Gurkiran Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court, assailing the order dated 13.08.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed by
the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, in Civil Suit No. CS-896-2017,
titled Ashok Kumar Mittal vs. Harsajjan Singh & Anr., whereby the
application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read
with Section 151 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint, has been
dismissed, notwithstanding the petitioner's contention that the proposed
amendments are necessary to bring subsequent events on record and
facilitate the complete and effective adjudication of the controversy
between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned
order proceeds on conjectures and surmises and reflects a failure on the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-8339-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
part of the Trial Court to duly consider the substance and import of the
grounds set forth in the application. It is submitted that the application has
primarily been rejected on the ground that, following remand of the suit,
the petitioner availed twelve opportunities to lead evidence without
seeking amendment of the plaint and that the application was moved more
than five months after the order passed by the First Appellate Court.
Learned counsel submits that the delay was neither intentional nor
deliberate, as the proposed amendment is founded upon subsequent events
which have materially affected the petitioner’s rights in respect of the suit
property.
2.1. It is further contended that, upon the respondents allegedly
having taken undue advantage of the dismissal of the petitioner’s suit, they
raised unauthorised construction over the suit property during the
pendency of the appeal, thereby altering its existing nature and status. The
petitioner, it is submitted, initially approached the police authorities
seeking restoration of possession; however, no effective assistance was
forthcoming, necessitating the filing of the application for amendment.
According to learned counsel, the subsequent construction has materially
altered the subject matter of the suit, making it imperative to bring the
subsequent developments on record through an appropriate amendment of
the plaint.
2.2. It is further argued that the proposed amendment neither
introduces an altogether new nor an independent cause of action, but
merely seeks to incorporate the subsequent conduct of the respondent-
defendants and the developments arising during the pendency of the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-8339-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
proceedings, which are necessary for determining the real questions in
controversy between the parties. Learned counsel emphasises that the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not impose an absolute prohibition
on amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial; rather, such an
amendment may be permitted where the Court is satisfied that, despite the
exercise of due diligence, the applicant could not have raised the matter
before commencement of the trial. It is, accordingly, contended that the
proposed amendment, being necessitated by subsequent events and
intended to bring the relevant developments on record, deserves to be
allowed in the interest of complete and effective adjudication of the
dispute.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, with his
able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the paper-book, this Court
finds no merit in the present petition. The Trial Court was fully cognizant
of the settled principles governing amendment of pleadings and the scope
of jurisdiction exercisable under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It has been
specifically noticed that issues in the suit were framed on 28.11.2017,
whereafter the suit was dismissed under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC. The
petitioner preferred an appeal, which was allowed on 26.08.2025, and the
matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication. Upon
remand, the petitioner examined Rajinder Singh as PW-1 in his
examination-in-chief on 08.01.2026. By way of the proposed amendment,
the petitioner seeks to introduce a plea that the defendants dispossessed
him from the plot in dispute during the intervening period between
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-8339-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
25.07.2023, when the suit was dismissed, and 26.08.2025, when the appeal
was allowed.
3.1. The Trial Court has rightly observed that, if the petitioner had
indeed been dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal, the principle
of due diligence required him to seek amendment of the plaint with
reasonable promptitude. However, even after remand, the matter was
adjourned on twelve occasions, affording the petitioner twelve
opportunities to conclude his evidence, yet no application for amendment
was moved during that period. Significantly, the petitioner has not
disclosed any specific date, month or year on which the alleged
dispossession took place. His case, as sought to be introduced through the
proposed amendment, is that the dispossession occurred sometime after
dismissal of the suit on 25.07.2023 and before the appeal was allowed on
26.08.2025. If that were indeed the position, the petitioner could have
brought the alleged dispossession to the notice of the First Appellate Court
while the appeal was pending. Even after remand, however, he proceeded
to lead evidence on the basis of the existing pleadings and, despite availing
twelve opportunities, did not seek amendment of the plaint. The
application was moved only thereafter, without furnishing any cogent
explanation for such prolonged inaction.
3.2. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, does not satisfy the
requirement of due diligence contemplated under the proviso to Order VI
Rule 17 CPC. Even assuming that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the
alleged dispossession at the time of adjudication of the appeal, no
satisfactory explanation has been furnished for his failure to approach the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-8339-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
Trial Court promptly upon remand. Furthermore, the proposed amendment
would materially alter the nature and character of the suit. The original suit
is one simpliciter for permanent injunction, whereas the petitioner now
seeks, on the basis of a vague and unspecified plea of dispossession, to
convert it into a suit for possession. Such a substantive alteration of the
relief claimed cannot be permitted in the absence of a clear and cogent
foundation in the pleadings, particularly when the petitioner has failed to
disclose the precise date or even the specific period of the alleged
dispossession and has not satisfactorily explained the delay in seeking the
amendment.
3.3. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the petitioner
has failed to establish either due diligence or any sufficient justification for
introducing the proposed amendment at this belated stage. The Trial Court
has, therefore, committed no illegality or material irregularity in declining
the application. The impugned order warrants no interference in exercise
of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of
merit, is dismissed .
4. It is, however, clarified that the observations made here-in-
above are confined strictly to the adjudication of the controversy arising in
the present proceedings and shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. Nothing stated herein
shall prejudice or influence the rights, claims or contentions of either party
in the pending suit or any other proceedings, nor shall these observations
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-8339-2026 (O&M) -:6:-
be construed as a determination of any substantive question of fact or law
arising therein.
5. In view of the final disposal of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly. No further orders are warranted.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
11.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document