Gurcharan Singh v. Jagroop Singh

CR No. 6778 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6778 of 2025 DATE OF DECISION :- 23.09.2025 Gurcharan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Jagroop Singh

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Monty Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1.

Petitioner vide this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks indulgence of this Court for setting aside the order dated 01.08.2025 vide which his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed by the Court below. 2.

A perusal of the record shows that the suit of the petitioner plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna on 01.08.2025 and subsequent to that petitioner plaintiff came up with an application for amendment of the plaint and this fact is clearly stated in the order following the first order passed by the Court on 01.08.2025 and the impugned order reads as under :- "At this stage at about 4:20pm an application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC for the amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff and perusal of the application shows that plaintiff wants to amend the plaint and change the amount of recovery from Rs. 5 lac to Rs. 2Lac. But it can be clearly seen the same is being done to avoid necessary Court fee which has been imposed upon the plaintiff vide order dated 30.04.2025. The same cannot be allowed especially when the PARVINDER SINGH 2025.09.23 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CR No. 6778 of 2025 present case has already been dismissed for want of Court fee. Accordingly, the present case stands dismissed for not making good the Court fee by the plaintiff. File be consigned to the record room." 3.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that when the suit of the petitioner plaintiff was already dismissed and nothing survived, the Court could not have entertained the application for amendment of the non-existent plaint. Therefore, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. No indulgence is required.

4.

The petition stands dismissed.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 23.09.2025 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PARVINDER SINGH 2025.09.23 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment