M/s Goraya Commission and Another M/s Goraya Commission and Another v. M/s Sukhraj Agro M/s Sukhraj Agro
Case Details
CR-6806-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-6806-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 24.09.2025 Decided on : M/s Goraya Commission and Another M/s Goraya Commission and Another ....Petitioners VERSUS M/s Sukhraj Agro M/s Sukhraj Agro ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Mr. Divyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Advocate for the petitioners. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of 25.07.2025 India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.07.2025 India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read application dated 04.07.2025 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read application dated with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 CPC was with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 CPC was with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 CPC was with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 CPC was dismissed.
Legal Reasoning
Brief Facts 2. The facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff/petitioner The facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff/petitioner The facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff/petitioner The facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff/petitioner M/s Sukhraj Agro, Shop No. 61, New Green instituted a suit for recovery against M/s Sukhraj Agro, Shop No. 61, New Green M/s Sukhraj Agro, Shop No. 61, New Green instituted a suit for recovery against
Legal Reasoning
Market, Batala, through its authorised signatory, Shri Rajinder Singh. In the plaint Market, Batala, through its authorised signatory, Shri Rajinder Singh. In the plaint Market, Batala, through its authorised signatory, Shri Rajinder Singh. In the plaint Market, Batala, through its authorised signatory, Shri Rajinder Singh. In the plaint it was alleged that the defendant firm is a concern in which Rajinder Singh was it was alleged that the defendant firm is a concern in which Rajinder Singh was it was alleged that the defendant firm is a concern in which Rajinder Singh was it was alleged that the defendant firm is a concern in which Rajinder Singh was managing and controlling the affairs. T ing and controlling the affairs. The written statement, however, specifically he written statement, however, specifically averred that the son of Rajinder Singh, namely Sukhraj Singh, is the sole proprietor averred that the son of Rajinder Singh, namely Sukhraj Singh, is the sole proprietor averred that the son of Rajinder Singh, namely Sukhraj Singh, is the sole proprietor averred that the son of Rajinder Singh, namely Sukhraj Singh, is the sole proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro and that Rajinder Singh was not the proprietor of that firm of M/s Sukhraj Agro and that Rajinder Singh was not the proprietor of that firm of M/s Sukhraj Agro and that Rajinder Singh was not the proprietor of that firm of M/s Sukhraj Agro and that Rajinder Singh was not the proprietor of that firm sues were framed though he admittedly runs M/s Rajinder Trading Company. Issues were framed though he admittedly runs M/s Rajinder Trading Company. Is though he admittedly runs M/s Rajinder Trading Company. Is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6806-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -2- - and the matter proceeded to trial. An application for framing of an additional issue and the matter proceeded to trial. An application for framing of an additional issue and the matter proceeded to trial. An application for framing of an additional issue and the matter proceeded to trial. An application for framing of an additional issue joinder of necessary parties was filed and dismissed. on the question of non-joinder of necessary parties was filed and dismissed. on the question of non 3. Thereafter an application dated 24.02. Thereafter an application dated 2025 under Order I Rule 10 and 24.02.2025 under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed. T hat application was recorded as having been er VI Rule 17 CPC was filed. That application was recorded as having been hat application was recorded as having been withdrawn on 2025, the record bearing a statement by counsel for the 04.07.2025, the record bearing a statement by counsel for the 2025, the record bearing a statement by counsel for the plaintiff that the application suffered from a technical defect. The earlier order plaintiff that the application suffered from a technical defect. The earlier order plaintiff that the application suffered from a technical defect. The earlier order plaintiff that the application suffered from a technical defect. The earlier order ut does not contain any express order either granting or records the withdrawal but does not contain any express order either granting or ut does not contain any express order either granting or records the withdrawal b refusing liberty to file a fresh application. On the same date i.e. on 04.07.2025 refusing liberty to file a fresh application. On the same date refusing liberty to file a fresh application. On the same date i.e. on 04.07.2025 a fresh application was filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Order fresh application was filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Order fresh application was filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Order fresh application was filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Order eeking to amend the plaint by specifically VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC seeking to amend the plaint by specifically eeking to amend the plaint by specifically VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC s adding the name of Sukhraj Singh as defendant No.2 and by stating that “defendant adding the name of Sukhraj Singh as defendant No.2 and by stating that “defendant adding the name of Sukhraj Singh as defendant No.2 and by stating that “defendant adding the name of Sukhraj Singh as defendant No.2 and by stating that “defendant No.1 is a sole proprietorship concern and defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor of No.1 is a sole proprietorship concern and defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor of No.1 is a sole proprietorship concern and defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor of No.1 is a sole proprietorship concern and defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor of hearing the parties, dismissed the defendant No.1.” The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the defendant No.1.” The learned trial court, after defendant No.1.” The learned trial court, after 2025. The reasons recorded by the trial fresh application vide order dated 25.07.2025. The reasons recorded by the trial 2025. The reasons recorded by the trial fresh application court are that an earlier similar application had been filed and withdrawn and court are that an earlier similar application had been filed and withdrawn court are that an earlier similar application had been filed and withdrawn and no express liberty to file a fresh application was shown on r express liberty to file a fresh he plaintiff had application was shown on record. The plaintiff had already led its evidence on the same array of parties and that allowing the already led its evidence on the same array of parties and that allowing the already led its evidence on the same array of parties and that allowing the already led its evidence on the same array of parties and that allowing the amendment at amendment at amendment at amendment at the stage of defendant’s evidence would complicate the stage of defendant’s evidence would complicate the stage of defendant’s evidence would complicate the stage of defendant’s evidence would complicate the the the the proceedings, cause multiplicity of applications, possibly necessitate further proceedings, cause multiplicity of applications, possibly necessitate further proceedings, cause multiplicity of applications, possibly necessitate further proceedings, cause multiplicity of applications, possibly necessitate further s and leading of fresh evidence and would therefore prejudice the affidavits and leading of fresh evidence and would therefore prejudice the s and leading of fresh evidence and would therefore prejudice the s and leading of fresh evidence and would therefore prejudice the urther, the trial court observed that the plaintiff had not shown due defendant. Further, the trial court observed that the plaintiff had not shown due urther, the trial court observed that the plaintiff had not shown due urther, the trial court observed that the plaintiff had not shown due diligence. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner 4. is Court contends that the Learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court contends that the Learned counsel for the petitioner before th Learned counsel for the petitioner before th impugned order is illegal and perverse. It is submitted that the omission to name impugned order is illegal and perverse. It is submitted that the omission to name impugned order is illegal and perverse. It is submitted that the omission to name impugned order is illegal and perverse. It is submitted that the omission to name TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6806-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -3- - the actual proprietor, namely Sukhraj Singh, in the plaint was a bona fide the actual proprietor, namely Sukhraj Singh, in the plaint was a bona fide the actual proprietor, namely Sukhraj Singh, in the plaint was a bona fide the actual proprietor, namely Sukhraj Singh, in the plaint was a bona fide and that inadvertent/typographical error which does not alter the cause of action and that inadvertent/typographical error which does not alter the cause of action inadvertent/typographical error which does not alter the cause of action the proposed amendment is formal in nature. Reliance is placed upon the power of the proposed amendment is formal in nature. Reliance is placed upon the power of the proposed amendment is formal in nature. Reliance is placed upon the power of the proposed amendment is formal in nature. Reliance is placed upon the power of the Court under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add necessary the Court under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add necessary the Court under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add necessary the Court under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add necessary cilitate effective parties and to allow amendments at any stage so as to facilitate effective parties and to allow amendments at any stage so as to fa parties and to allow amendments at any stage so as to fa adjudication. It contended that refusal to allow the amendment would result is also contended that refusal to allow the amendment would result contended that refusal to allow the amendment would result in failure of justice because the decree, when passed, may not be executable in failure of justice because the decree, when passed, may not be executable in failure of justice because the decree, when passed, may not be executable in failure of justice because the decree, when passed, may not be executable against the correct person. It is further submitted that the plaintiff acted with due against the correct person. It is further submitted that the plaintiff acted with due against the correct person. It is further submitted that the plaintiff acted with due against the correct person. It is further submitted that the plaintiff acted with due diligence in filing the earlier application and in promptly f diligence in filing the e iling the corrected arlier application and in promptly filing the corrected that the identity of the proprietor sought to be impleaded is application and that the identity of the proprietor sought to be impleaded is that the identity of the proprietor sought to be impleaded is application and admitted in the defendant’s written statement and therefore no new cause of action admitted in the defendant’s written statement and therefore no new cause of action admitted in the defendant’s written statement and therefore no new cause of action admitted in the defendant’s written statement and therefore no new cause of action amendment. It is further the contention or surprise would be occasioned by the amendment. It is further the contention amendment. It is further the contention or surprise would that the apprehension of multiplicity of proceedings or prejudice to the defendant is that the apprehension of multiplicity of proceedings or prejudice to the defendant is that the apprehension of multiplicity of proceedings or prejudice to the defendant is that the apprehension of multiplicity of proceedings or prejudice to the defendant is Learned counsel for the petitioner, on speculative and not established on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on Learned counsel for the petitioner, on speculative and not established on record. er undertakes not to lead any evidence, instructions, further submits that the petitioner undertakes not to lead any evidence er undertakes not to lead any evidence instructions, further submits that the petition if the application filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 application filed by him under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 151 CPC, is allowed. CPC and Section 151 CPC Findings 5. of the learned counsel for the I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the I have considered the submissions I have considered the submissions and examined the record. Two questions require determination: first, petitioner and examined the record. Two questions require determination: first, and examined the record. Two questions require determination: first, and examined the record. Two questions require determination: first, whether the second (fresh) application dated 04.07.2025 whether the second (fresh) application dated was maintainable in view 04.07.2025 was maintainable in view the same very date i.e. of the earlier application having been withdrawn on the same very date i.e. of the earlier application having been withdrawn on of the earlier application having been withdrawn on 04.072025; and second, whether 2025; and second, whether the amendment s to implead the amendment sought, namely, to implead Sukhraj Singh as the sole proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro and to make a Sukhraj Singh as the sole proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro and to make a Sukhraj Singh as the sole proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro and to make a Sukhraj Singh as the sole proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro and to make a TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6806-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -4- - consequential deposition in the plaint is necessary for proper adjudication and ential deposition in the plaint is necessary for proper adjudication and is necessary for proper adjudication and should be permitted at this stage. should be permitted at this stage. 6. he record clearly discloses that the earlier On the first question, the record clearly discloses that the earlier he record clearly discloses that the earlier On the first question, t application was recorded as withdrawn on 04.07. application was recorded as withdrawn on 2025. There is no express order 04.07.2025. There is no express order on record granting liberty to file a fresh application. T on record granting libe he absence of any such rty to file a fresh application. The absence of any such ressly sanction refiling at that express grant meant that the trial court did not expressly sanction refiling at that express grant meant that the trial court did not exp express grant meant that the trial court did not exp juncture. Withdrawal of an application ordinarily marks an abandonment of that juncture. Withdrawal of an application ordinarily marks an abandonment of that juncture. Withdrawal of an application ordinarily marks an abandonment of that juncture. Withdrawal of an application ordinarily marks an abandonment of that owever, withdrawal simpliciter does not operate as an particular attempt. However, withdrawal simpliciter does not operate as an owever, withdrawal simpliciter does not operate as an particular attempt bar to filing a adjudication on the merits nor does it ipso facto create an absolute bar to filing a adjudication on the merits nor does it ipso facto create an absolute adjudication on the merits nor does it ipso facto create an absolute corrected application. Courts possess discretion under the Code to entertain a fresh corrected application. Courts possess discretion under the Code to entertain a fresh corrected application. Courts possess discretion under the Code to entertain a fresh corrected application. Courts possess discretion under the Code to entertain a fresh application notwithstanding earlier withdrawal, subject to equitable considerations application notwithstanding earlier withdrawal, subject to equitable considerations application notwithstanding earlier withdrawal, subject to equitable considerations application notwithstanding earlier withdrawal, subject to equitable considerations and prejudice such as the stage of the proceedings, delay, diligence of the applicant and prejudice such as the stage of the proceedings, delay, diligence of the applicant such as the stage of the proceedings, delay, diligence of the applicant to the opposite party. In the present matter it is relevant that the purported defect to the opposite party. In the present matter it is relevant that the purported defect to the opposite party. In the present matter it is relevant that the purported defect to the opposite party. In the present matter it is relevant that the purported defect sought to be cured by amendment concerns the correct identification of the person sought to be cured by amendment concerns the correct identification of the person sought to be cured by amendment concerns the correct identification of the person sought to be cured by amendment concerns the correct identification of the person who is the sole proprietor of the defendant firm and that this factual position is no who is the sole proprietor of the defendant firm and that this factual po who is the sole proprietor of the defendant firm and that this factual po sition is not he written statement itself admits that Sukhraj Singh is the sole in dispute. The written statement itself admits that Sukhraj Singh is the sole he written statement itself admits that Sukhraj Singh is the sole he written statement itself admits that Sukhraj Singh is the sole proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro. Moreover, the fresh application was filed proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro. Moreover, the fresh application was filed proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro. Moreover, the fresh application was filed proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro. Moreover, the fresh application was filed promptly on the same date as the withdrawal, that is, the corrected application was the same date as the withdrawal, that is, the corrected application was that is, the corrected application was n afterthought filed after substantial delay but an immediate attempt to cure a not an afterthought filed after substantial delay but an immediate attempt to cure a n afterthought filed after substantial delay but an immediate attempt to cure a n afterthought filed after substantial delay but an immediate attempt to cure a stated technical defect. In these circumstances, the mere absence of an express stated technical defect. In these circumstances, the mere absence of an express stated technical defect. In these circumstances, the mere absence of an express stated technical defect. In these circumstances, the mere absence of an express recorded liberty to file a fresh application cannot be permitted to operate as an recorded liberty to file a fresh application cannot be permitted to operate as an recorded liberty to file a fresh application cannot be permitted to operate as an recorded liberty to file a fresh application cannot be permitted to operate as an o as to defeat the substantive right to have the controversy absolute bar so as to defeat the substantive right to have the controversy o as to defeat the substantive right to have the controversy o as to defeat the substantive right to have the controversy adjudicated on merits; to hold otherwise would elevate form over substance and adjudicated on merits; to hold otherwise would elevate form over substance and adjudicated on merits; to hold otherwise would elevate form over substance and adjudicated on merits; to hold otherwise would elevate form over substance and risk injustice. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6806-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -5- - 7. On the second question, Order I Rule 10 CPC empowers the Court to On the second question, Order I Rule 10 CPC empowers the Court to On the second question, Order I Rule 10 CPC empowers the Court to On the second question, Order I Rule 10 CPC empowers the Court to efore the Court is necessary in order to enable it to add any party whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable it to efore the Court is necessary in order to enable it to add any party whose presence b effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates that amendments which are necessary for suit. Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates that amendments which are necessary for suit. Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates that amendments which are necessary for suit. Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates that amendments which are necessary for sy ought to be allowed, unless the determining the real question in controversy ought to be allowed, unless the sy ought to be allowed, unless the determining the real question in controver amendment would cause injustice to the opposite party which cannot be amendment would cause injustice to the opposite party which cannot be amendment would cause injustice to the opposite party which cannot be amendment would cause injustice to the opposite party which cannot be plaintiff is compensated by costs or other terms. The amendment proposed by the plaintiff is compensated by costs or other terms. The amendment proposed by the compensated by costs or other terms. The amendment proposed by the limited and formal as it seeks to name the actual sole proprietor alrea limited and formal as i dy identified t seeks to name the actual sole proprietor already identified in the written statement and to record the relationship between the firm and its sole in the written statement and to record the relationship between the firm and its sole in the written statement and to record the relationship between the firm and its sole in the written statement and to record the relationship between the firm and its sole t does not proprietor. The proposed amendment does not alter the cause of action. It does not proprietor. The proposed amendment does not alter the cause of action proprietor. The proposed amendment does not alter the cause of action rmitting introduce any new claim nor seek to convert the character of the suit. Permitting introduce any new claim nor seek to convert the character of the suit. Pe introduce any new claim nor seek to convert the character of the suit. Pe the amendment will facilitate effective adjudication and ensure that any decree the amendment will facilitate effective adjudication and ensure that any decree the amendment will facilitate effective adjudication and ensure that any decree the amendment will facilitate effective adjudication and ensure that any decree passed is executable against the correct legal entity/person. As to the trial court’s passed is executable against the correct legal entity/person. As to the trial court’s passed is executable against the correct legal entity/person. As to the trial court’s passed is executable against the correct legal entity/person. As to the trial court’s concern that allowing the amendment at the stage of defendant’s evidence would concern that allowing the amendment at the stage of defendant’s evidence would concern that allowing the amendment at the stage of defendant’s evidence would concern that allowing the amendment at the stage of defendant’s evidence would lead to multiplicity, additional affida ad to multiplicity, additional affidavits and re vits and re-opening of evidence, t , the apprehension, while understandable, is not of such a character as to justify refusal apprehension, while understandable, is not of such a character as to justify refusal apprehension, while understandable, is not of such a character as to justify refusal apprehension, while understandable, is not of such a character as to justify refusal This is particularly so, when the learned counsel where no real prejudice is shown. This is particularly so, when the learned counsel This is particularly so, when the learned counsel where no real prejudice is shown. the petitioner undertakes not to lead any evidence, if the petitioner undertakes not to lead any evidence for the petitioner stated that the petitioner undertakes not to lead any evidence for the petitioner stated that the application filed by him under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 application filed by him under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 151 CPC, is allowed. CPC and Section 151 CPC 8. provisions For these reasons, and having regard to the object of the provisions For these reasons, and having regard to the object of the For these reasons, and having regard to the object of the to enable the Court to determine the real questions permitting amendment, namely, to enable the Court to determine the real questions to enable the Court to determine the real questions permitting amendment, satisfied that the fresh application controversy between the parties, this Court is satisfied that the fresh application controversy between the parties, this Court is in controversy between the parties, this Court is filed on 04.07.20 25 was maintainable notwithstanding that the earlier application 2025 was maintainable notwithstanding that the earlier application 25 was maintainable notwithstanding that the earlier application had been withdrawn and no express liberty to re had been withdrawn and no express this liberty to re-file is recorded. Further, this TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6806-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -6- - that the amendment sought is necessary for proper adjudication Court is satisfied that the amendment sought is necessary for proper adjudication that the amendment sought is necessary for proper adjudication Court is satisfied that refusal to allow the same would occasion and is formal in nature, and that refusal to allow the same would occasion that refusal to allow the same would occasion and is formal in nature, and prejudice to the plaintiff and result in a possible failure of justice. prejudice to the plaintiff and result in a possible failure of justice. prejudice to the plaintiff and result in a possible failure of justice. Conclusion 9. 2025 is set aside to the Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 is set aside to the Accordingly, the impugned order dated Accordingly, the impugned order dated revision extent that it dismissed the application dated 04.07.2025. The present revision extent that it dismissed the application dated extent that it dismissed the application dated is allowed. The application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule petition is allowed. The application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule is allowed. The application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule is allowed. The application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule is allowed 17 CPC and Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff on 04.07.2025 is allowed 17 CPC and Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff on 17 CPC and Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff on subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the petitione subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5000/ rs to the to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent before the learned trial Court. respondent before the learned trial Court. 10.
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. 2025 September 24, 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 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document