CMPMO/94/2025 on 14 October 2026

1 2026:HHC:6655 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 94 of 2025 Decided on: 14.10.2026 Lal Chandran & anr.

… Petitioners Versus Lekh Raj & ors.

…Respondents _____________________________ ______________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr.

Abhinav

Kainthla, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Virender Singh, Judge

(oral)

Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 17.10.2024, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, HP, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No.509 of 2023, whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, for amendment of the written statement, moved by the present respondents, in the civil suit No. 79-I/2013,

2 2026:HHC:6655 titled as, ‘Lal Chandram & anr. versus Lekh Raj & others’.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as referred to, by the learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under: The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, against the defendants, asserting the fact that they are owners in possession, along with other co-sharers, of the land comprised, under Khewat No. 150/141, Khatauni No. 242/234, Khasra No. 633, measuring 16-04-03 bighas, situated in Muhal Anju/10, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, HP, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). 3.1 The defendants are stated to be strangers to the suit land, and according to the plaintiffs, the defendants, without any right, title, or interest, are causing illegal interference, in the suit land. Adjoining to the suit land, ancestral houses of the plaintiffs, are there. The

3 2026:HHC:6655 defendants had started digging the land with the motive to raise construction, over the suit land, as they want to grab the valuable and best portion of the suit land, adjoining to the road. 3.2 On the basis of the above facts, they have sought the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, against the defendants.

4. When put to notice, the suit has been contested by the defendants, by filing the written statement, in which, they have taken the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable; the plaintiffs have no enforceable cause of action; the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit, the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands, and the suit of the plaintiffs is also stated to be time-barred. 4.1 On merits, the factual position, qua the ownership of the suit land, has not been disputed. According to the defendants, they are digging their own land, which is adjoining to the suit land, and according

4 2026:HHC:6655 to them, the plaintiffs have already grabbed the valuable portion of the land of the defendants and constructed their houses over it. Other allegations have also been controverted by pleading that half portion of the house of the plaintiffs is situated over the land of the defendants. As such, they have prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Plaintiffs filed replication, denying the preliminary objections, as well as, the contents of the written statement, by virtue of which, the suit has been contested.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed the issues, in this case, on 21.05.2014.

7. Thereafter, the parties were directed to lead evidence. The plaintiffs have closed their evidence, on 28.06.2022.

8. When, the lis was pending for recording the evidence of DWs, on 17.11.2023, an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been filed. By way of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, the defendants want to amend their written statement by

5 2026:HHC:6655 adding the following lines in paragraph number 3, which are reproduced, as under: "That the applicants/defendants are in possession over the portion of the suit land from their forefather from last 100 years, which was duly admitted by the brother of the plaintiff No.1 Sh. Ram Singh in the demarcation report conducted by the field Kanungo of Settlement on dated 21.06.2016. Copy of the demarcation report is enclosed as Annexure -D1. The applicants/defendants were not aware that the wife of the plaintiff No.1 i.e. plaintiff No.2 Smt. Meena Devi filed demarcation application before the Ld. A.C. 1st Grade (Settlement) Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P., which was sent to field Kanungo to demarcate the land on the spot. When the Field Kanungo and Patwari Patwar Circle concerned went to the spot after summoning the parties. When the Field Kanungo and Patwari went to demarcate the suit land, it has been found that one Sh. Ram Singh has filed the RSA No. 518/2012 CMP No. 3338 of 2016 in which the status quo has been granted, therefore, the demarcation of the suit land i.e. Khasra No. 633 cannot be conducted. Said Ram Singh who is the real brother of plaintiff No.1 present on the spot and stated that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff No.1 has purchased the suit land and stated that when the predecessor in interest has purchased the suit land, the applicants/defendants were/are in possession of the some portion of the suit land much prior of the purchasing of the suit land. In the said demarcation, said Ram Singh has also stated that they have no objection regarding the possession of the applicants/defendants over the suit land. The said Ram Singh has also stated that after the partition of the

6 2026:HHC:6655 Khasra No. 633 and after the final order of the Hon'ble High Court, the demarcation can be Conducted. The applicants/defendants came to know about this facts only when the counsel of the applicants/defendants prepared for the evidence and after reading the demarcation report of field Kanungo which was filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents on 24.11.2022, only then the applicants/defendants came to know that said Ram Singh brother of the plaintiff No.1 has also admitted that the applicants/defendants are in possession over the suit land much prior to the purchasing of the suit land by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff No.1 Sh. Hadu Ram in the year, 1965. Hence the applicants/defendants intends to file the counter claim and amend their written statement. Hence this application.”

9. The said amendment has been sought to be made in the written statement, on the ground, that the learned counsel appearing for the defendants came to know about the above facts, when he was preparing for the evidence, and when he read the demarcation report, which was filed by the plaintiffs, on 24.11.2022.

10. On the basis of the proposed amendment, the the defendants also pleaded that they intend to file the counter claim. The proposed amendment is also stated to be necessary, for the just adjudication of the case, as

7 2026:HHC:6655 the same would not change the nature of the case and it would help the Court to decide the matter, in controversy.

11. The application has been contested by the plaintiffs by pleading that the application is not maintainable, as the suit has been filed in the year 2013 and the application has been filed, in the year 2023, despite of the fact that the applicants knew that the demarcation was conducted, on 19.10.2016.

12. Other contents of the application have also been denied, and it has been pleaded that the proposed amendment is not necessary for the just adjudication of this case, rather, the same has been filed to delay the proceedings.

13. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the application. The order, by virtue of which, the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been allowed, has been assailed by the plaintiffs, before this Court, by way of the present petition.

8 2026:HHC:6655

14. Admittedly, the lis in the present case, was instituted, way back in the year 2013, and the issues were framed on 21.5.2014. The application for amendment was filed ion 17.11.2023. Admittedly, at that time, trial of the suit had already been commenced.

15. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is reproduced as under: “Order VI xx xx xx

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.”

16. Law with regard to amendment has elaborately been discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and anr., reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1. Relevant paragraphs 71 to 71.11 of the judgment are reproduced as under:

9 2026:HHC:6655 “71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: 71.1 Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. 71.2 All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. 71.3 The prayer for amendment is to be allowed 71.3.1 if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and 71.3.2 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4 A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless 71.4.1 By the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, 71.4.2 The amendment changes the nature of the suit, 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is malafide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is

10 2026:HHC:6655 ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8 Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.

71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment

sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)”. (self emphasis supplied)

17. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is totally silent about the legal requirement to allow the

11 2026:HHC:6655 application, after the commencement of the trial, as per the proviso added with Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.

18. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Builders Private Limited’s case (supra), then it can be said that the proposed amendment is nothing, but to change the very nature of the suit, which is not permissible, under the law, that too, after the commencement of the trial.

19. Consequently, the learned trial Court has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction, vested in it, as the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which has been inserted by the legislature, in its wisdom, to curb the delay, in the trial of the suit, has been overlooked.

20. After the commencement of the trial, the amendment cannot be allowed on mere asking of the party to the lis. When, by way of the proposed amendment, the defendant intend to file the counter claim to seek the relief of possession, then, it can be said that the very nature of the suit would be changed.

12 2026:HHC:6655

21. Considering all these facts, the order passed by the learned trial Court by virtue of which, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been allowed, does not sustain in the judicial scrutiny by this Court.

22. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 17.10.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, is set aside and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is dismissed.

23. The

plaintiffs/petitioners,

through

their counsels, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 17.11.2026. The learned trial Court is requested to proceed further, in accordance with law, after securing the presence of the parties.

24. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application.

25. The record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith. (Virender Singh) 14.10.2026 (Kalpana) Judge

13 2026:HHC:6655

14 2026:HHC:6655