As per case facts, two revision petitions were filed by Bikramjit Singh, challenging trial court orders that dismissed his applications to amend the written statement in specific performance suits filed ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
1. CR-5726-2025(O&M)
Bikramjit Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Varun Kumar and another
... Respondents
2. CR-5733-2025(O&M)
Bikramjit Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Varun Kumar and others
... Respondents
Date of decision : 29.09.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate and
Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate
for the petitioner.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
CM-19787-CII-2025
1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on
record the zimni orders as Annexure P-12.
2. Application is allowed. Annexure P-12 is taken on record.
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 2
CM-19788-CII-2025
1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for the revival of
the revision petition which was disposed of.
2. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by
an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 25.08.2025 is
recalled and the main revision petition is ordered to be restored to its
original number.
Main case(s)
1. The present order would dispose of two revision petitions. The
first revision petition i.e., CR-5726-2025 has been filed by Bikramjit Singh
against Varun Kumar and another and in the said revision petition challenge
has been made to order dated 25.07.2015 (Annexure P-10) passed by the
Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Gurdaspur, in Civil Suit no.CS-867 of 2018
(Annexure P-1) instituted on 11.07.2018 vide which the application for
amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant has
been dismissed. The second revision petition i.e., CR-5733-2025 has been
filed by Bikramjit Singh (defendant no.1) against Varun Kumar, Manika
and another in which challenge is to the order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure
P-10) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Gurdaspur, in Civil Suit no.CS-
868 of 2018 (Annexure P-1) instituted on 11.07.2018 vide which the
application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner-
defendant has been dismissed.
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that
in both the suits, the defendants are Bikramjit Singh and Baljit Singh and
the present petitioner is defendant no.1. It is submitted that plaintiff no.1 in
both the suits is Varun Kumar and in the suit which is subject matter of CR-
5733-2025 i.e., plaintiff no.2 is Manika. It is submitted that both the suits
have been instituted on the same date and are being heard on the same date
and both the suits are for possession by way of specific performance of
agreement to sell. It is submitted that in CR-5726-2025, the agreement to
sell regarding which the suit has been filed is dated 01.12.2014 and is with
respect to 8 kanals of land, whereas in the suit which is subject matter of
CR-5733-2025 the agreement to sell of which specific performance is
sought is dated 18.10.2016 and the land involved is 18 kanal 9 marlas. It is
fairly submitted that the facts for the purpose of present revision petitions
can be considered from CR-5726-2025. Accordingly, the facts are being
taken from CR-5726-2025.
3. It has not been disputed before this Court that two suits were
filed for specific performance of two agreements by respondent no.1-
plaintiff Varun Kumar and the same had been filed in the year 2018. The
zimni orders have been annexed as Anenxure P-12 by the petitioner. A
perusal of the same would show that every endeavour has been made by
defendants no.1 and 2 to delay the proceedings in the suit filed by the
plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance. On 06.08.2018,
both the defendants had been served and they had appeared through their
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 4
counsel Sh. Raman Kumar, which fact is apparent from the zimni order
dated 06.08.2018 which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Present Shri Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff.
Shri Raman Kumar, Advocate, has filed power-
of-attorney on behalf of defendants no. 1 & 2. Service is
complete. Now to come upon 19.09.2018 for filing written
statement.
Date of Order: 06.08.2018 Gurpreet Kaur,
CJJD/GSP
Next Date: 19.09.2018 UID No. PB0471
Purpose:______ Note: Dictated directly on computer”
4. The case was adjourned to 19.09.2018 for filing written
statement and similarly on 03.11.2018 the case was adjourned to 03.12.2018
for filing written statement, subject to last and final opportunity. However,
on 03.12.2018, the counsel for the defendants, which included the present
petitioner i.e., defendant no.1 moved an application under Section 151 CPC
for staying the proceedings and several dates were given in the same and the
said application under Section 151 CPC was finally decided on 25.11.2021.
The said application was allowed and the suit was dismissed as not
maintainable. The zimni order dated 24.11.2021 showing the presence of
said Raman Kumar, Advocate is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Present: Sh. Rajiv Bhatia Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh.Raman Kumar Advocate for defendant.
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 5
Arguments again not addressed. Adjournment
requested. Adjourned to 25.11.2021 for consideration on the
application under Section 151 CPC.
Date of Order (Madan Lal)
Dated:24.11.2021 ACJM/CJSD Gurdaspur/UID No. PB0200
5. Even a perusal of the order dated 25.11.2021, which has also
been annexed with the main petition as Annexure P-2, would show that the
said application was argued by Sh. Raman Kumar, Advocate, counsel for
the defendants.
6. Respondent no.1-plaintiff had filed CR-481-2022 in which the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to stay the operation and effect
of the order under challenge and had directed the trial Court to restore the
suit to its original number and to proceed with the case. On 08.03.2022, the
trial Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
“Present: Shri Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate for plaintiff.
Shri Raman Kumar, Advocate for defendants.
Ahlmad has put up the file. Order from the Hon'ble
High Court has been received, vide which Hon'ble High Court
has directed that the order under challenge will remain stayed
and the trial Court will provisionally restore the suit to its
original number and proceed with the suit. In view of the
order of Hon'ble High Court passed in 137 CR-481-2022,
dated 11/02/2022, operation of order dated 25/11/2021 will
remain stayed and provisionally the suit is hereby restored to
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 6
its original number. Adjourned to 13/05/2022 for awaiting
further orders of Hon'ble High Court.
Date of Order: 08/03/2022 (Madan Lal)
CJ(SD)/ACJM, Gurdaspur.
(UID NO.PB0200)”
A perusal of the above order passed by the trial Court would
show that after passing of the order by the Hon’ble High Court, the
petitioner as well as other defendants were well aware of the said case as
their counsel Sh. Raman Kumar had appeared before the trial Court on
08.03.2022.
7. On 01.12.2023, defendant no.2 did not appear and was thus
proceeded against ex-parte and the present petitioner had appeared in
person. However, on 03.04.2024 Sh.Raman Kumar, Advocate again filed
power of attorney on behalf of defendant no.1 i.e., the petitioner and sought
adjournment for filing written statement. The zimni order dated 03.04.2024
is reproduced herienbelow:-
“Present: Sh. Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate for the plaintiffs.
Sh. Raman Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.1
Bikramjit Singh.
Defendant No.2 exparte vide order dated
01.12.2023.
Sh. Raman Kumar, Advocate filed Power of
Attorney on behalf of defendant No.1 Bikramjit Singh. On
request, the case is adjourned to 03.05.2024 for filing written
statement by defendant No.1.
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 7
Date of Order: 03.04.2024 (Madan Lal)
CJSD/Gurdaspur
(UID NO.PB0200)”
8. Even on 14.05.2024, the said Raman Kumar had appeared for
defendant no.1 and had further sought time for filing written statement . The
said zimni order dated 14.05.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Present: Sh. Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate for the plaintiffs.
Sh. Raman Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.1
Bikramjit Singh.
Defendant No.2 exparte vide order dated
01.12.2023.
Written statement not filed by defendant No.1. On
the request of counsel for defendant No.1, case stands
adjourned to 24.05.2024 for filing written statement by
defendant No.1, subject to last opportunity.
Date of Order: 14.05.2024 (Rajesh Ahluwalia)
CJSD/Gurdaspur
(UID No. PB0281)”
9. On 24.05.2024, Raman Kumar Advocate had moved an
application under Oder 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte
proceedings qua defendant no.2 which was allowed on 01.07.2024 and the
ex-parte proceedings against defendant no.2 were set aside subject to costs
of Rs.200/-. The zimni order dated 01.07.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Present:- Sh. Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate, Id. counsel for
plaintiff/respondent.
Sh. Raman Kumar, Advocate, Id. counsel for
applicant /defendant No. 2 Baljit Singh and
defendant No.1.
Reply to the application u/o 9 Rule 7 CPC filed.
Copy supplied. Heard. Vide my separate detailed order of even
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 8
date, application u/o 9 rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex-
parte order/proceedings against defendant vide order dated
01.12.2023, stands set aside, subject to cost of Rs.200/- to be
given to the plaintiff. Case stands adjourned to 22.07.2024 for
filing written statement on behalf of defendants and payment
of cost.
Rajesh Ahluwalia, (UID No.PB0281)
CJ/SD, Gurdaspur, 01.07.2024”
10. On 22.07.2024 also, counsel Sh. Raman Kumar prayed for an
adjournment to file written statement and the case was adjourned to
22.08.2024. Again on 22.08.2024, written statement was not filed, although
counsel Sh. Raman Kumar had appeared along with defendants no.1 and 2
and the case was adjourned to 07.09.2024, on which date again reply was
not filed. On 23.09.2024, defendant no.1-petitioner appeared in person and
prayed for adjournment to file written statement and it was further
specifically clarified that no further opportunity would be granted. On
29.10.2024, again defendant no.1 did not appear nor his counsel appeared
and was thus proceeded against ex-parte. The order dated 29.10.2024 is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Present: Sh. Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate, Id. counsel for
plaintiff.
None for the defendants No.1.
Defendant No.2 exparte.
Today the case was fixed for filing rejoinder and
arguments on stay application. Case has been called several
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 9
times since morning, but neither the defendant No.1 in
person nor any counsel on his behalf appeared in the Court.
It is already 4.10 P.M. As such, the defendant No.1 is
proceeded against exparte.
Case stands adjourned to 13.11.2024 for arguments on
stay application.
Date of Order: 29.10.2024. (Rajesh Ahluwalia)
CJSD/Gurdaspur
(UID NO.PB0281)”
11. The case thereafter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff and
on 07.01.2025, an application was moved by defendant no.1- petitioner for
setting aside ex-parte order, which was allowed on 23.01.2025 subject to
payment of costs of Rs.200/-. It would be relevant to note that on
21.01.2025 Sh. Raman Kumar, Advocate, appeared for the defendants and
on 10.02.2025 the said counsel had again appeared for defendant no.1. The
said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Present: Sh. Rajiv Bhatia Advocate for plaintiffs.
Sh. Raman Kumar, Advocate for defendants.
Arguments on application for setting aside exparte
order dated 29.10.2024 not addressed. Adjournment requested
which is not opposed. Case stands adjourned to 23.01.2025 for
consideration on the above said application.
Date of Order: 21.01.2025 (Rajesh Ahluwalia)
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Gurdaspur, UID No. PB0281”
xxx xxx xxx
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 10
“Present:- Sh. Raman Kumar, Advocate, Id. counsel for
applicant/defendant No.1 Bikramjeet Singh and
Baljit Singh
Sh. Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate, Id. counsel for
plaintiffs/ respondents.
Arguments on application u/o 9 Rule 7 CPC heard. Vide
my separate detailed order of even date, application u/o 9 rule
7 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order/proceedings against
defendant vide order dated 13.11.2024, stands allowed, subject
to cost of Rs.200/- to be given to the plaintiff. Vide separate
order issues framed. For PWs adjourned to 10.02.2025.
Rajesh Ahluwalia, (UID No.PB0281)
CJ/SD, Gurdaspur, 23.01.2025”
12. The issues in the present case were framed on 23.01.2025 in the
presence of Sh. Raman Kumar, Advocate, for defendant no.1 and thereafter
on 25.02.2025, the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read
with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement was filed.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner-defendant no.1 had filed the reply on 09.10.2024 and although in
the said reply, he had taken up the plea that the agreement was not genuine
and the agreement was written as security but the said written statement was
not in proper form as the same had not been filed by the Advocate. It is
prayed that thus, the application filed for amendment dated 25.02.2025 be
allowed and the petitioner-defendant no.1 be permitted to file written
statement through counsel. It is further submitted that the impugned order
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 11
vide which the said application has been dismissed is illegal and against law
and deserves to be set aside.
14. A perusal of the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 would show
that the trial Court had noted the conduct of the defendants, including the
present petitioner, who is defendant no.1 and also the fact that Raman
Kumar, Advocate had been appearing on their behalf right from the
beginning and had even filed application under Section 151 CPC for staying
the proceedings and had also filed an application for setting aside the ex-
parte order and that issues in the case were also framed and the case was
fixed for plaintiff’s evidence. It was observed that from perusal of the
record, it could not be said that the defendants did not have any access to
the counsel and rather it was apparent that the defendants were trying to
delay the proceedings. The said order which has been passed is in
accordance with law and deserves to be upheld.
15. From the abovesaid zimni orders, it is apparent that Sh. Raman
Kumar, Advocate had been engaged on the first date of appearance and had
filed application under Section 151 CPC for stay of proceedings as well as
application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings against both defendant
no.1 and defendant no.2 and even after passing of the order of the High
Court, had been representing the defendants. In the said circumstances, the
filing of the written statement (Annexure P-7) on 09.10.2024 by the
petitioner not through counsel seems to be a clever tactic to further delay
the proceedings which have been instituted in the year 2018. Even a perusal
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 12
of the application dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P-8) would show that there
is no reference to any specific paragraph which is sought to be added or
deleted and rather a prayer has been made for filing a fresh written
statement regarding which no provision of law has been referred to before
this Court or in the said application. Moreover, in the present case, it cannot
be even remotely said that the written statement through counsel could not
be filed in spite of due diligence and thus, the amendment sought is also hit
by proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
16. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been incorporated on
01.07.2002 and the said provision reads as under:-
“
17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of
the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his
pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just,
and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary
for the purpose of determining the real questions in
controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes
to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could
not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
A perusal of the above provision would show that it has been
specifically mentioned in the proviso that no application for amendment
shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the
conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not raise the matter
before commencement of the trial.
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 13
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N.
Pande and another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, reported
as 2006(12) SCC 1, had observed that trial is deemed to commence when
the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence and
for the purpose of satisfying the requirement of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as
amended), the necessary particulars are required to be mentioned in the
application which would satisfy the requirement of law.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai and thers
vs. Padmalatha and another reported as 2009(2) SCC 409 had further
observed that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC restricts the power of the
Court and it puts an embargo on the exercise of its jurisdiction and the
Court’s jurisdiction in a case where amendment is sought after the
commencement of the trial is limited. In the said case, defendants therein
had moved an application for amendment after issues had been framed and
the plaintiffs’ witnesses therein had filed affidavit by way of evidence and
the trial Court had dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
whereas the High Court had allowed the said application under Order 6
Rule 17 CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the law on the
point and also after taking into consideration the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17
CPC had set aside the order of the High Court and had upheld the order of
the trial Court dismissing the application. Additionally, it was observed that
the High Court while setting aside the order did not satisfy the test of
judicial review and it had not been found that the trial Court had exceeded
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 14
its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order therein nor it had been found
that there was any error of law committed by the trial Court. The law laid
down in the abovesaid case would fully apply in the present case as it is not
in dispute that there was no due diligence in filing the application for
amendment and thus, amendment sought was hit by the proviso to Order 6
Rule 17 CPC.
19.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shalini Shyam
Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil", reported as (2010) 8
Supreme Court Cases 329, had observed that the High Courts cannot, at the
drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227
of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to
it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the
orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was also observed in the said
judgment that a statutory amendment with respect to Section 115 of the
Civil Procedure Code does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High
Court's power under Article 227, but at the same time, it must be
remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly
expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.
The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to
ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of
justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence
in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.
It was also observed that the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but
CR-5726-2025(O&M) 15
its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline.
20. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the
impugned orders deserve to be upheld and are accordingly upheld and the
present revision petitions filed by the petitioner being meritless, deserves to
be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
September 29, 2025.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....