Sarika Arora v. Capt. Harjit Singh Toor and Another Capt. Harjit Singh Toor
Case Details
(O&M) CR-3787-2025 (O&M) -1- - 118 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 CR-3787-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 11.08.2025 Decided on : Sarika Arora ....Petitioner VERSUS Capt. Harjit Singh Toor and Another Capt. Harjit Singh Toor ....Respondents
Legal Reasoning
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Mayank Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. , Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. revision petition is to the order dated Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated revision petition is to the order dated Challenge in 28.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge 28.05.2025 passed by learned (Senior Division), Dera Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar Mohali, vide , District SAS Nagar Mohali, vide which application under Order 6 which application under Order 6 Rule Rule 17 or short, ‘CPC) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of written statement filed by petitioner/defendant is dismissed seeking amendment of written statement filed by petitioner/defendant is dismissed seeking amendment of written statement filed by petitioner/defendant is dismissed seeking amendment of written statement filed by petitioner/defendant is dismissed by the learned L Lower Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant Learned couns contends that in the el for the petitioner/defendant contends that in the written statement it itten statement it has been inadvertently mentioned that “the respondent has paid has been inadvertently mentioned that “the respondent has paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in advance to the petitioner” an amount of Rs.50,000/ the above said advance to the petitioner” whereas the above said statement is factually incorrect and was mistakenly typed due to oversight as no statement is factually incorrect and was mistakenly typed due to oversight as no statement is factually incorrect and was mistakenly typed due to oversight as no statement is factually incorrect and was mistakenly typed due to oversight as no such advance amount of Rs.50,000/ mount of Rs.50,000/- was ever t to the was ever paid by the petitioner/tenant to the landlord. Therefore, the need arose to file an landlord. Therefore, the need arose to file application under Order 6 Rule Rule 17 CPC before the before the learned Trial Court. However, learned has illegally rial Court. However, learned Trial Court has illegally dismissed the application of the petitioner/defendant dismissed the application of the detailed petitioner/defendant without passing a detailed order. It is a settled law that the amendments, which are necessary order. It is a settled law that the amendments in controversy which are necessary, in controversy TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-3787-2025 (O&M) -2- - f a reasoned and speaking order, the are to be allowed. Thus, in the absence of a reasoned and speaking order, the f a reasoned and speaking order, the are to be allowed. Thus impugned order order is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, Learned counsel for respondent on the other hand, submits that No.1, on the other hand, submits that the trial has reached at the stage of final argument the trial has reached been the stage of final arguments and evidence has already been concluded. Hence, t Hence, the amendment cannot be allowed. he amendment cannot be allowed. He further submits that He further submits that the learned Lower C ourt has rightly dismissed the application for amendment having Court has rightly dismissed the application for amendment having ourt has rightly dismissed the application for amendment having and also on the ground that it amounts to and also on the ground that it amounts been filed at the fag-end of the trial and also on the ground that it amounts been filed at the fag denying of the fact admitted by defendant which cannot be called a denying of the fact admitted by defendant clerical error. which cannot be called a clerical error. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and peruse I have considered the r the record of the bmissions and perused the record of the case. 5. the evidence of both the sides stand concluded It is not in dispute that the evidence of both the sides stand concluded the evidence of both the sides stand concluded It is not in dispute and the case is if any, otherwise for final arguments, fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, otherwise for final arguments, if any, otherwise for final arguments, when the present application was moved. Hon’ble S when the present application was moved. upreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Another [2009(2) SCC 409 Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & An has held that after 2009(2) SCC 409] has held that after commencement of trial, an amendment can be allowed only if the Court come an amendment can be allowed only if the Court comes to to a the party could not have raised the matter conclusion that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter the party could not have raised the matter conclusion that despite due diligence o such due diligence has been before commencement of trial. In the present case, no such due diligence has been before commencement of trial. In the present case before commencement of trial. In the present case it is submitted by learned counsel for defendant that by pleaded or proved. Rather, it is submitted by learned counsel for defendant that by it is submitted by learned counsel for defendant that by pleaded or proved. Rather way of amendment in written statement, he pro way of amendment in written statement poses to delete the fact that an he proposes to delete the fact that an advance to the landlord on the ground that it amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid in advance to the landlord on the ground that it advance to the landlord on the ground that it amount of Rs.50,000/ was inadvertently typed. However, learned counsel for respondent has placed on was inadvertently typed. However, learned counsel for respondent has placed on was inadvertently typed. However, learned counsel for respondent has placed on was inadvertently typed. However, learned counsel for respondent has placed on record a photocopy of evidence of defendant photocopy of evidence of defendant – Sarika wherein Sarika, by way of affidavit, wherein she has reiterated reiterated the above-said version of having paid Rs.50,000/ advance to said version of having paid Rs.50,000/- in advance to the petitioner. Thus, it belies the version of defendant that this fact was the petitioner. Thus, it belies the version of defendant that this fact was the petitioner. Thus, it belies the version of defendant that this fact was the petitioner. Thus, it belies the version of defendant that this fact was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-3787-2025 (O&M) -3- - reiterated inadvertently mentioned in the written statement, when she herself has reiterated inadvertently mentioned in the written statement inadvertently mentioned in the written statement this fact in her evidence evidence. 6. view that the In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the In view of the above, this Court is of the In view of the above, this Court is of the lower court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 7 learned lower court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 7 lower court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 7 lower court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, vide order dated 28.05.2025 , vide order dated 28.05.2025. Hence, the same is upheld and he same is upheld and accordingly the present revision petition stands dismissed. present revision petition 7.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 11, 2025 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 2025.08.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document