Ravinder Singh Ravinder Singh v. Shubh Kumar
Case Details
(O&M) CR-5368-2025 (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-5368-2025 (O&M) CR Decided on :- 12.08.2025 Decided on : Ravinder Singh Ravinder Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Shubh Kumar ....Respondent
Legal Reasoning
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dera Baba Bhumman Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhumman Shah Sangar Sarista Sangar Sarista v. , wherein it was held that the trial Court should decide the Dr. Subhash Narula, wherein it was held that the trial Court should decide the , wherein it was held that the trial Court should decide the Dr. Subhash Narula Order VI Rule 17 CPC before considering the application under application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC before considering the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC before considering the application under application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and thereafter test the amended plaint at the threshold Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and thereafter test the amended plaint at the threshold Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and thereafter test the amended plaint at the threshold Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and thereafter test the amended plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, if necessary. under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, if necessary. 8. esent Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the present Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the pr Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the pr case, once the amendment has been allowed, it is the amended plaint which would case, once the amendment has been allowed, it is the amended plaint which would case, once the amendment has been allowed, it is the amended plaint which would case, once the amendment has been allowed, it is the amended plaint which would TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5368-2025 (O&M) -3- - be examined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The course adopted by the learned be examined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The course adopted by the learned be examined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The course adopted by the learned be examined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The course adopted by the learned trial Court, therefore, suffers from no illegality or material irregularity. trial Court, therefore, suffers from no illegality or material irregularity. trial Court, therefore, suffers from no illegality or material irregularity. 9.
Arguments
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Present: Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya, (Annexure P (Annexure P-7) whereby the application filed by the plaintiff whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for (hereinafter referred to as amendment of the plaint has been allowed, despite the pendency of an application amendment of the plaint has been allowed, despite the pendency of an application amendment of the plaint has been allowed, despite the pendency of an application amendment of the plaint has been allowed, despite the pendency of an application petitioner/defendant (hereinafter under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant (hereinafter under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the referred to as the ‘petitioner’) referred to as the ‘petitioner’) 2. cts, as emerging from the record, are that the plaintiff The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the plaintiff cts, as emerging from the record, are that the plaintiff The brief fa instituted a suit for recovery of ₹1,00,00,000/- instituted a suit for recovery of along with interest at the rate of - along with interest at the rate of as damages. The defendant entered appearance and filed an 18% per annum as damages. The defendant entered appearance and filed an as damages. The defendant entered appearance and filed an 18% per annum rejection of the plaint on the ground application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground rejection of the plaint on the ground application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for that the plaintiff had failed to affix ad valorem court fee on the claimed amount, that the plaintiff had failed to affix ad valorem court fee on the claimed amount, that the plaintiff had failed to affix ad valorem court fee on the claimed amount, that the plaintiff had failed to affix ad valorem court fee on the claimed amount, rendering the suit liable to be dismissed. rendering the suit liable to be dismissed. 3. During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiff moved an During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiff moved an During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiff moved an During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiff moved an rder VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by rder VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by application under O TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5368-2025 (O&M) -2- - with the words “liquidated damages as substituting the amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- with the words “liquidated damages as with the words “liquidated damages as substituting the amount of assessed by the Hon’ble Court.” The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order assessed by the Hon’ble Court.” The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order assessed by the Hon’ble Court.” The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order assessed by the Hon’ble Court.” The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, allowed the amendment. dated 20.12.2024, allowed the amendment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court committed a serious illegality in deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 committed a serious illegality in deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 committed a serious illegality in deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 committed a serious illegality in deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC prior to adjudicating the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It CPC prior to adjudicating the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It CPC prior to adjudicating the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It CPC prior to adjudicating the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It t, had the Court first decided the application under Order VII Rule is submitted that, had the Court first decided the application under Order VII Rule t, had the Court first decided the application under Order VII Rule is submitted tha 11 CPC, the plaint would have been rejected for want of proper court fee on the 11 CPC, the plaint would have been rejected for want of proper court fee on the 11 CPC, the plaint would have been rejected for want of proper court fee on the 11 CPC, the plaint would have been rejected for want of proper court fee on the fixed claim of ₹1,00,00,000/ ₹1,00,00,000/-. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 6. raised by the learned counsel for the I find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the raised by the learned counsel for the I find no merit in the contention . There is no legal bar or absolute prohibition against deciding an petitioner. There is no legal bar or absolute prohibition against deciding an . There is no legal bar or absolute prohibition against deciding an . There is no legal bar or absolute prohibition against deciding an endment prior to deciding an application under Order VII Rule application for amendment prior to deciding an application under Order VII Rule endment prior to deciding an application under Order VII Rule application for am 11 CPC. On the contrary, the normal course would be to first consider and decide 11 CPC. On the contrary, the normal course would be to first consider and decide 11 CPC. On the contrary, the normal course would be to first consider and decide 11 CPC. On the contrary, the normal course would be to first consider and decide the amendment application, so that the pleadings, as finally settled, can then be the amendment application, so that the pleadings, as finally settled, can then be the amendment application, so that the pleadings, as finally settled, can then be the amendment application, so that the pleadings, as finally settled, can then be er VII Rule 11 CPC. tested on the parameters of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. tested on the parameters of Ord 7. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of a Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of a Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of a Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of a
Decision
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 In view of th (Annexure e above, the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure is upheld. The revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. P-7) is upheld. The revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. is upheld. The revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 10. 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 12, 2025 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document