The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterates that courts have wide discretion under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to permit amendments in pleadings—even based on subsequently available revenue records—where necessary for effective adjudication, unless serious prejudice is caused to the opposite party; the ruling affirms existing legal precedent and is binding on subordinate courts dealing with amendments in civil suits involving property descriptions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/7282/2025 of KARANDEEP SINGH Vs BALBIR SINGH AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC011630852025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Property Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that amendments to pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the suit if it is necessary for the determination of the real questions in controversy and does not cause serious prejudice to the opposite party. The exercise of discretion under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to be liberal—especially if the amendment merely aligns the plaint with current revenue records and does not introduce a new cause of action or withdraw admissions. The correctness of facts introduced by amendment is a matter for trial evidence, not a ground to reject the amendment at the threshold. The fact that a document upon which amendment is based (here, Fard Badar) is under challenge in a separate suit does not preclude amendment. Even at an advanced stage, such amendments should ordinarily be allowed if they enable effective adjudication and if delay is compensated by costs. There was no irregularity or jurisdictional error on part of the trial court in the present case. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Not specifically named in the judgment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Emphasized settled law regarding liberal exercise of discretion in granting amendments; clarified that pleadings are to place facts before the Court, with truth determined through evidence; compensation for delay via costs is sufficient safeguard. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession regarding a double-storey house, basing the property description on earlier Jamabandi records. Defendants objected to misdescription and non-joinder, leading to impleadment of other co-sharers. During trial, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to align property particulars with more recent revenue records (Jamabandi for 2019–20 and Fard Badar). Defendants opposed, citing late knowledge and pending challenge to the Fard Badar. The trial court allowed amendment subject to costs; the petitioner (defendant) challenged this in revision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be cited in similar circumstances involving amendments based on evolving property records |
| Follows | Follows established principles regarding liberal amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The ruling reaffirms a liberal approach to the amendment of pleadings, even if based on subsequent revenue records arising after the filing of the suit.
- The pendency of a separate legal challenge to the validity of the document (here, Fard Badar) on which amendment is based does not itself bar the amendment.
- Amendment is permissible even at an advanced trial stage if necessary to determine the real question in controversy and provided costs are imposed for any delay.
- The truth or validity of new facts introduced is for trial, not for summary rejection of the amendment application.
- Lawyers can argue for or defend against amendments by focusing on whether irreparable prejudice or injustice truly arises, rather than procedural technicalities.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether the trial court correctly exercised discretion in allowing amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
- It noted that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action nor amount to withdrawal of an admission; rather, it merely updated property particulars in line with newer revenue records.
- The defendants’ challenge was based on the alleged invalidity and concealment of a key document (Fard Badar), but the Court held that such contentions should be decided at trial, not at the stage of amendment.
- The Court reaffirmed that amendments are to be allowed if they facilitate just adjudication, unless serious prejudice results, and the imposition of costs suffices to offset any delay.
- The court further held that mere existence of a dispute over a document’s validity is not a bar to its reference in pleadings.
- Absence of reasoning by the trial court for delay was noted, but the overall order was found reasoned and within jurisdiction.
- On these grounds, revisional interference under Article 227 was refused.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The impugned order is illegal and perverse as the amendment is based on a disputed and challenged Fard Badar.
- Plaintiff had knowledge of the document for over two years but sought amendment only at a late stage, attempting to fill lacunae.
- Amendment would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit and reopen settled partition issues.
Respondent
(No direct arguments by plaintiff/respondents are set out in the judgment, only by way of court’s summary.)
Factual Background
The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and possession of a specific property, initially describing the land as per old Jamabandi records. Defendants objected to the suit on grounds of non-joinder of parties and improper property description. Other co-sharers were later impleaded. During trial, with some evidence recorded, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to correct the description of the land and shares as per newer revenue records (Jamabandi for 2019–20 and Fard Badar). Defendants objected, claiming concealment and pendency of a separate declaratory suit challenging Fard Badar. The trial court allowed the amendment, which was then challenged in this revision.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: The Court analyzed the provision’s scope, reaffirming that it permits amendments at any stage if necessary for determining the real issues, so long as no serious prejudice is caused to the other side.
- Section 151 CPC: Invoked as part of the application for inherent powers to permit amendment.
- Article 227, Constitution of India: Scope of superintendence and limited interference on the ground of jurisdictional errors or material irregularity, clarified as not available merely because two views are possible.
- No “reading down” or expansive/narrow interpretation applied.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded; the judgment was authored solely by Justice Mandeep Pannu.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or guidelines, changes in burden of proof, or suo motu directions were set in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The ruling affirms and applies established legal principles relating to the amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.