Sahabuddin and Others Sahabuddin and Others v. Others Safi Khan and Others
Case Details
(O&M) CR-1159-2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR-1159-2024 (O&M) CR Decided on :- 27.08.2025 Decided on : Sahabuddin and Others Sahabuddin and Others ....Petitioners VERSUS Others Safi Khan and Others ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Present: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vinjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate and Mr. Vinjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate and Mr. Vinjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate and , Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Kamaljeet Saraf, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Kamaljeet MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated This revision petition has been filed against the order dated This revision petition has been filed against the order dated This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh,
Legal Reasoning
whereby the application of the petitioners/defendant Nos. 13 to 15, 21, 23 to 24 & whereby the application of the petitioners/defendant Nos. 13 to 15, 21, 23 to 24 & whereby the application of the petitioners/defendant Nos. 13 to 15, 21, 23 to 24 & whereby the application of the petitioners/defendant Nos. 13 to 15, 21, 23 to 24 & 26 (hereinafter referr (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the petitioners’) under Order VI Rule 17 read with under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of their written statement was dismissed. Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of their written statement was dismissed. Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of their written statement was dismissed. Brief Facts 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief in the alternative, for possession, claiming to be of permanent injunction, and in the alternative, for possession, claiming to be in the alternative, for possession, claiming to be of permanent injunction, and owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff also challenged various sale owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff also challenged various sale owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff also challenged various sale owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff also challenged various sale No.1 to 7 and subsequent vendees, alleging that the deeds executed by defendants No.1 to 7 and subsequent vendees, alleging that the No.1 to 7 and subsequent vendees, alleging that the deeds executed by defendant are illegal, null and void. said documents and consequential mutations are illegal, null and void. said documents and consequential mutations 3. Defendants appeared and filed their written statements. After Defendants appeared and filed their written statements. After Defendants appeared and filed their written statements. After Defendants appeared and filed their written statements. After conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence and when the case was fixed for defendants’ conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence and when the case was fixed for defendants’ conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence and when the case was fixed for defendants’ conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence and when the case was fixed for defendants’ TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-1159-2024 (O&M) -2- evidence, petitioners filed the present application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC evidence, petitioners filed the present application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC evidence, petitioners filed the present application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC evidence, petitioners filed the present application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC ing to amend their written statement. seeking to amend their written statement. 4. By way of proposed amendment, petitioners intended to incorporate By way of proposed amendment, petitioners intended to incorporate By way of proposed amendment, petitioners intended to incorporate By way of proposed amendment, petitioners intended to incorporate Safi Khan v. the factum of an earlier civil suit bearing No.228 of 2006 titled as “Safi Khan v. the factum of an earlier civil suit bearing No.228 of 2006 titled the factum of an earlier civil suit bearing No.228 of 2006 titled Abdul Rahman” It was , which was compromised and withdrawn on 14.01.2011. It was ”, which was compromised and withdrawn on disclosure pleaded that this earlier litigation was suppressed by the plaintiff and its disclosure pleaded that this earlier litigation was suppressed by the plaintiff and its pleaded that this earlier litigation was suppressed by the plaintiff and its was necessary for the just decision of the case. was necessary for the just decision of the case. 5. The plaintiff opposed the application contending that it was filed The plaintiff opposed the application contending that it was filed The plaintiff opposed the application contending that it was filed The plaintiff opposed the application contending that it was filed plaintiff had already concluded his belatedly only to delay proceedings. The plaintiff had already concluded his plaintiff had already concluded his belatedly only to delay proceedings. The evidence, six witnesses of the defendants had been examined, and the amendment evidence, six witnesses of the defendants had been examined, and the amendment evidence, six witnesses of the defendants had been examined, and the amendment evidence, six witnesses of the defendants had been examined, and the amendment was not necessary for determination of the controversy. was not necessary for determination of the controversy. was not necessary for determination of the controversy. 6. ourt dismissed the application on the ground that the The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the ourt dismissed the application on the ground that the The trial ot necessary and would result in reopening of the trial, thereby amendment was not necessary and would result in reopening of the trial, thereby ot necessary and would result in reopening of the trial, thereby amendment was n causing prejudice to the plaintiff. causing prejudice to the plaintiff. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners/defendants Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the earlier /defendants submitted that the earlier ppression of facts by the plaintiff and to establish litigation is material to show suppression of facts by the plaintiff and to establish ppression of facts by the plaintiff and to establish litigation is material to show su ourt cannot the bar of res judicata. Unless incorporated in pleadings, the Court cannot the bar of res judicata. Unless incorporated in pleadings, the the bar of res judicata. Unless incorporated in pleadings, the
Legal Reasoning
adjudicate upon that fact. It was argued that the trial C adjudicate upon that fact ourt wrongly dismissed the . It was argued that the trial Court wrongly dismissed the application mechanically. application mechanically. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the On the other respondent/plaintiff hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that petitioners were not parties to the earlier suit, they have not pleaded submitted that petitioners were not parties to the earlier suit, they have not pleaded submitted that petitioners were not parties to the earlier suit, they have not pleaded submitted that petitioners were not parties to the earlier suit, they have not pleaded due diligence, and the amendment at this belated stage is wholly unnecessary. due diligence, and the amendment at this belated stage is wholly unnecessary. due diligence, and the amendment at this belated stage is wholly unnecessary. due diligence, and the amendment at this belated stage is wholly unnecessary. produce certified copies of judicial Even without amendment, petitioners can produce certified copies of judicial produce certified copies of judicial Even without amendment, petitioners can records and the court can take judicial notice thereof. records and the court can take judicial notice thereof. records and the court can take judicial notice thereof. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-1159-2024 (O&M) -3- Findings 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the record. 10. The petitioners seek amendment The petitioners seek amendment The petitioners seek amendment The petitioners seek amendment to plead to plead to plead to plead the pendency and the pendency and the pendency and the pendency and an earlier civil suit of 2006. Admittedly, petitioners were not parties withdrawal of an earlier civil suit of 2006. Admittedly, petitioners were not parties an earlier civil suit of 2006. Admittedly, petitioners were not parties an earlier civil suit of 2006. Admittedly, petitioners were not parties to that earlier litigation. It is not shown how such withdrawal affects the to that earlier litigation. It is not shown how such withdrawal affects the to that earlier litigation. It is not shown how such withdrawal affects the to that earlier litigation. It is not shown how such withdrawal affects the adjudication of present controversy. The trial court has rightly observed that adjudication of present controversy. The trial court has rightly observed that adjudication of present controversy. The trial court has rightly observed that adjudication of present controversy. The trial court has rightly observed that roceedings, if relevant, can always be placed on record judicial record of earlier proceedings, if relevant, can always be placed on record roceedings, if relevant, can always be placed on record judicial record of earlier p and judicial notice thereof can be taken. and judicial notice thereof can be taken. 11. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires the applicant to show The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires the applicant to show The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires the applicant to show The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires the applicant to show that despite due diligence, such plea could not be raised earlier. The present suit that despite due diligence, such plea could not be raised earlier. The present suit that despite due diligence, such plea could not be raised earlier. The present suit that despite due diligence, such plea could not be raised earlier. The present suit s been pending since 2018, whereas the earlier litigation ended in 2011. The has been pending since 2018, whereas the earlier litigation ended in 2011. The s been pending since 2018, whereas the earlier litigation ended in 2011. The s been pending since 2018, whereas the earlier litigation ended in 2011. The petitioners have not explained why such facts could not be pleaded earlier or at petitioners have not explained why such facts could not be pleaded earlier or at petitioners have not explained why such facts could not be pleaded earlier or at petitioners have not explained why such facts could not be pleaded earlier or at least at the time of filing their written statement. The element of due diligence is least at the time of filing their written statement. The element of due diligence is least at the time of filing their written statement. The element of due diligence is least at the time of filing their written statement. The element of due diligence is absent. conspicuously absent. 12. The petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble The petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble The petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble The petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Supreme Court in , particularly paragraph 70 thereof. In Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022, particularly paragraph 70 thereof. In , particularly paragraph 70 thereof. In Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022 on’ble Supreme Court held that amendments which are that decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that amendments which are on’ble Supreme Court held that amendments which are that decision, the H necessary for determining the real question in controversy are to be allowed, necessary for determining the real question in controversy are to be allowed, necessary for determining the real question in controversy are to be allowed, necessary for determining the real question in controversy are to be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The Court provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The Court provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The Court provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The Court emphasised that amendments should be permitted emphasised that if required for effective mendments should be permitted if required for effective Amendments are not to be adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Amendments are not to be adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. barred claims, change the refused unless they withdraw admissions, introduce time-barred claims, change the refused unless they withdraw admissions, introduce time refused unless they withdraw admissions, introduce time nature of the suit, or cause serious prejudice. Courts must adopt a nature of the suit, or cause serious prejudice. liberal approach Courts must adopt a liberal approach TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-1159-2024 (O&M) -4- technical objections, especially where the opposite party can be and avoid hyper-technical objections, especially where the opposite party can be technical objections, especially where the opposite party can be and avoid hyper compensated by costs. compensated by costs. 13. The principles laid down in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (supra) The principles laid down in are well LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (supra) are well he parameters recognised. However, the facts of the present case do not fall within the parameters recognised. However, the facts of the present case do not fall recognised. However, the facts of the present case do not fall he proposed amendment is not required for effective and indicated therein as the proposed amendment is not required for effective and he proposed amendment is not required for effective and indicated therein as t proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Petitioners were not parties proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Petitioners were not parties proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Petitioners were not parties proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Petitioners were not parties thdrawal to the earlier litigation of 2006 and have not demonstrated how its withdrawal to the earlier litigation of 2006 and have not demonstrated how its wi to the earlier litigation of 2006 and have not demonstrated how its wi determines the present rights in the suit property. The plaintiff has already determines the present rights in the suit property. The plaintiff has already determines the present rights in the suit property. The plaintiff has already determines the present rights in the suit property. The plaintiff has already concluded evidence and six defence witnesses have been examined. Permitting the concluded evidence and six defence witnesses have been examined. Permitting the concluded evidence and six defence witnesses have been examined. Permitting the concluded evidence and six defence witnesses have been examined. Permitting the amendment at this stage would necessarily entail reopening of the trial, thereby amendment at this stage would necessarily entail reopening of the trial, thereby amendment at this stage would necessarily entail reopening of the trial, thereby amendment at this stage would necessarily entail reopening of the trial, thereby prejudice and delay. The earlier litigation ended in 2011. The present suit causing prejudice and delay. The earlier litigation ended in 2011. The present suit prejudice and delay. The earlier litigation ended in 2011. The present suit prejudice and delay. The earlier litigation ended in 2011. The present suit has been pending since 2018. Petitioners have not even pleaded, much less proved, has been pending since 2018. Petitioners have not even pleaded, much less proved, has been pending since 2018. Petitioners have not even pleaded, much less proved, has been pending since 2018. Petitioners have not even pleaded, much less proved, that despite due diligence they could not raise this plea earlier. The mandatory that despite due diligence they could not raise this plea earlier. The mandatory that despite due diligence they could not raise this plea earlier. The mandatory that despite due diligence they could not raise this plea earlier. The mandatory e proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is therefore not satisfied. requirement of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is therefore not satisfied. e proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is therefore not satisfied. requirement of th Even if the earlier litigation is relevant, defendants can produce certified copies of Even if the earlier litigation is relevant, defendants can produce certified copies of Even if the earlier litigation is relevant, defendants can produce certified copies of Even if the earlier litigation is relevant, defendants can produce certified copies of judicial records, and the court can take judicial notice thereof. Thus, refusal of judicial records, and the court can take judicial notice thereof. Thus, refusal of judicial records, and the court can take judicial notice thereof. Thus, refusal of judicial records, and the court can take judicial notice thereof. Thus, refusal of amendment does not prejudice their defence. amendment does not preju 14. Thus, unlike in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (supra) Thus, unlike in , where the LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (supra), where the amendment was indispensable for adjudication and avoidance of multiplicity, here amendment was indispensable for adjudication and avoidance of multiplicity, here amendment was indispensable for adjudication and avoidance of multiplicity, here amendment was indispensable for adjudication and avoidance of multiplicity, here the proposed amendment is neither indispensable nor bona fide. the proposed amendment is neither indispensable nor bona fide. the proposed amendment is neither indispensable nor bona fide. Conclusion 15. the above, this Court holds that the petitioners have failed In light of the above, this Court holds that the petitioners have failed the above, this Court holds that the petitioners have failed In light of to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is material or necessary for to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is material or necessary for to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is material or necessary for to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is material or necessary for The amendment is not required for effective determination of the real controversy. The amendment is not required for effective The amendment is not required for effective determination of the real controversy. adjudication as the petitioners were not even parties to the earlier suit. adjudication as the petitioners were not It is filed at even parties to the earlier suit. It is filed at TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-1159-2024 (O&M) -5- a highly belated stage, after conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence and examination of a highly belated stage, after conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence and examination of a highly belated stage, after conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence and examination of a highly belated stage, after conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence and examination of No plea of due diligence has been taken, as mandated by the six defence witnesses. No plea of due diligence has been taken, as mandated by the No plea of due diligence has been taken, as mandated by the six defence witnesses. Allowing such amendment would prejudice the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Allowing such amendment would prejudice the Allowing such amendment would prejudice the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Judicial notice plaintiff and reopen the trial without advancing the cause of justice. Judicial notice plaintiff and reopen the trial without advancing the cause of justice. plaintiff and reopen the trial without advancing the cause of justice. taken by the Court at any stage of udicial records of earlier proceedings can be taken by the Court at any stage of udicial records of earlier proceedings can be of judicial records of earlier proceedings can be the trial. 16. finds no illegality or perversity in the order Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order finds no illegality or perversity in the order Accordingly, this Court 2024 passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application under dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application under 2024 passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application under 2024 passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The reliance placed on LIC v. Sanjeev Builders Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The reliance placed on Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The reliance placed on LIC v. Sanjeev Builders is ion is absent in the present case. misplaced, as the factual foundation for its application is absent in the present case. misplaced, as the factual foundation for its applicat misplaced, as the factual foundation for its applicat 17. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed and t and the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 is upheld. impugned order 18.
Decision
application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. Pending 2025 August 27, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document