C.R.No.5370 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5370 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2009 Parkash Devi @ Parkasi ...........Petitioner Versus Smt.Kishni Devi and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. -- Sabina, J. (oral) This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the impugned order dated 11.8.2009 (Annexure P5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat. Plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. Plaintiff wants to seek relief of declaration that the sale deeds dated 17.6.2004 was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Vide the impugned order dated 11.8.2009, the said application was dismissed. C.R.No.5370 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court by dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has virtually dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration. Plaintiff has been denied opportunity to lead her evidence in support of her case qua the amendment. Plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction. Admittedly, plaintiff was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on the basis of her submission that the suit property regarding which the case had been registered against her had been transferred back to the defendants. Learned trial Court has observed that the sale deeds dated 17.6.2004 revealed that they were executed by the petitioner voluntarily and were attested by her son. Photographs of the petitioner, vendee and the witnesses were also printed on the sale deeds. Since the petitioner had sought the relief of anticipatory bail in the criminal proceedings initiated against her in FIR No.75 dated 12.7.2004 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kundli, on the basis of execution of the sale deeds by her in favour of the defendants, the application for amendment of the plaint had been rightly dismissed because in these proceedings, the plaintiff could not be allowed to take up the plea that the sale deeds were the result of fraud. The facts of the present case are peculiar in nature. In normal circumstances, while deciding the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no finding on merits of the document can be given. But the facts of the present case are of their own kind. Plaintiff cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the sale deeds while seeking relief of anticipatory bail in the criminal proceedings and C.R.No.5370 of 2009 (O&M) 3 then challenge the same in the civil proceedings. The impugned order does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed ( Sabina ) Judge September 16, 2009 arya