Abhinav Sihag v. Anita Jyani
Case Details
CR-5433-2024 (O&M) (O&M) -1- - 111 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-5433-2024 (O&M) Decided on :- 13.08.2025 Decided on : Abhinav Sihag ....Petitioner VERSUS Anita Jyani ....Respondent
Legal Reasoning
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Rajesh Narang , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present civil The present civil The present civil been revision petition has been revision petition has revision petition has filed by filed by the the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the order dated 03.09.2024 petitioner/plaint passed by the learned Civil iff assailing the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for amendment of the of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘ of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘ plaint has been dismissed. plaint has been dismissed. BRIEF FACTS BRIEF FACTS 2. he plaintiff filed a suit Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff filed a suit Brief facts relevant to the present Brief facts relevant to the present 2020 seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit on 29.09.2020 seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit 2020 seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit 2020 seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit property and that the sale deed and that the sale deed dated 15.06.2020 executed in favour of the dated 15.06.2020 executed in favour of the payment of sale defendant is null and void on account of fraud and non-payment of sale defendant is null and void on account of fraud and non defendant is null and void on account of fraud and non The defendant, in her written statement, pleaded that the entire sale consideration. The defendant, in her written statement, pleaded that the entire sale The defendant, in her written statement, pleaded that the entire sale The defendant, in her written statement, pleaded that the entire sale he sale deed had been consideration had been paid and the cheque mentioned in the sale deed had been consideration had been paid and the cheque mentioned in t consideration had been paid and the cheque mentioned in t TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5433-2024 (O&M) (O&M) -2- - duly encashed in the plaintiff’s account.An application under Order VII Rule 11 duly encashed in the plaintiff’s account.An application under Order VII Rule 11 duly encashed in the plaintiff’s account.An application under Order VII Rule 11 duly encashed in the plaintiff’s account.An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed by the defendant, which was dismissed on CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed by the defendant, which was dismissed on CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed by the defendant, which was dismissed on CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed by the defendant, which was dismissed on 2024 under Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application dated 08.08.2024 under Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application dated 15.01.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application dated Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to add an alternative relief ₹30,35,000 with interest, in case the main of recovery of sale consideration of ₹30,35,000 with interest, in case the main ₹30,35,000 with interest, in case the main of recovery of sale consideration of relief of declaration was not granted.The learned trial court dismissed the relief of declaration was not granted.The learned trial court dismissed the relief of declaration was not granted.The learned trial court dismissed the relief of declaration was not granted.The learned trial court dismissed the tion holding that the proposed amendment introduced a distinct and application holding that the proposed amendment introduced a distinct and tion holding that the proposed amendment introduced a distinct and tion holding that the proposed amendment introduced a distinct and inconsistent cause of action, thereby changing the nature of the suit. inconsistent cause of action, thereby changing the nature of the suit. inconsistent cause of action, thereby changing the nature of the suit. Submissions Of Counsel For The Parties Submissions Of Counsel 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Learned counsel for the he amendment is petitioner contends that the amendment is It is ificatory and seeks an alternative relief based on the same transaction. It is ificatory and seeks an alternative relief based on the same transaction. only clarificatory and seeks an alternative relief based on the same transaction. necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that t Per contra he relief , learned counsel for the respondent contends that the relief action and is fundamentally of recovery of money is based on a separate cause of action and is fundamentally of recovery of money is based on a separate cause of of recovery of money is based on a separate cause of different from a declaratory suit. He further contends that a different from a declaratory suit llowing such an . He further contends that allowing such an ause prejudice to the amendment would alter the very character of the suit and cause prejudice to the amendment would alter the very character of the suit and c amendment would alter the very character of the suit and c defendant. He further submits that the trial court has rightly dismiss defendant. He further submits that t ed the he trial court has rightly dismissed the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. record carefully. Findings 6. It is a settled proposition of law that a relief for declaration and a t is a settled proposition of law that a relief for declaration and a t is a settled proposition of law that a relief for declaration and a t is a settled proposition of law that a relief for declaration and a relief for recovery of money are legally distinct in nature and character. A suit for relief for recovery of money are legally distinct in nature and character. A suit for relief for recovery of money are legally distinct in nature and character. A suit for relief for recovery of money are legally distinct in nature and character. A suit for declaration determines status or rights in respect of property, whereas a suit for declaration determines status or rights in respect of property, whereas a suit for declaration determines status or rights in respect of property, whereas a suit for declaration determines status or rights in respect of property, whereas a suit for ey claim requiring separate valuation, court fee, and evidence. recovery is a money claim requiring separate valuation, court fee, and evidence. ey claim requiring separate valuation, court fee, and evidence. recovery is a mon TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5433-2024 (O&M) (O&M) -3- - different from the main relief, and not merely An alternative relief that is totally different from the main relief, and not merely different from the main relief, and not merely An alternative relief that is totally cannot be introduced by way of amendment, as it would amount to ancillary, cannot be introduced by way of amendment, as it would amount to cannot be introduced by way of amendment, as it would amount to cannot be introduced by way of amendment, as it would amount to on and changing the nature of the suit. substituting a new cause of action and changing the nature of the suit. substituting a new cause of acti 7. he original suit is for a declaration that the sale In the present case the original suit is for a declaration that the sale he original suit is for a declaration that the sale In the present case The proposed amendment seeks a money decree for recovery deed is null and void. The proposed amendment seeks a money decree for recovery The proposed amendment seeks a money decree for recovery deed is null and void of ₹30,35,000 with interest ₹30,35,000 with interest in the alternative. T an ancillary or in the alternative. This is not an ancillary or consequential relief but a wholly different relief requiring distinct pleadings, consequential relief but a wholly different relief requiring distinct pleadings, consequential relief but a wholly different relief requiring distinct pleadings, consequential relief but a wholly different relief requiring distinct pleadings, The cause of action for a recovery suit is valuation, court fee, and evidence. The cause of action for a recovery suit is The cause of action for a recovery suit is valuation, court fee, and evidence. different from that of a declaratory suit; combining the two would amount to different from that of a declaratory suit; combining the two would amount to different from that of a declaratory suit; combining the two would amount to different from that of a declaratory suit; combining the two would amount to n alternative nverting the suit into one of an entirely different character. Thus, an alternative nverting the suit into one of an entirely different character. converting the suit into one of an entirely different character. relief of recovery cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment where relief of recovery cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment where relief of recovery cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment where relief of recovery cannot be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment where it is founded on a cause of action that is distinct from, and inconsistent with, the it is founded on a cause of action that is distinct from, and inconsistent with, the it is founded on a cause of action that is distinct from, and inconsistent with, the it is founded on a cause of action that is distinct from, and inconsistent with, the l cause of action in the plaint. original cause of action in the plaint. 8 There is no illegality in the impugned order dated There is no illegal 03.09.2024 passed ity in the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned trial Court. The same is, hereby, upheld and the present revision by the learned trial Court. The same is, hereby, upheld and the present revision by the learned trial Court. The same is, hereby, upheld and the present revision by the learned trial Court. The same is, hereby, upheld and the present revision dismissed. petition is dismissed. 9.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also sta Pending application(s), if any, also sta August 13, 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 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document