CMPMO/81/2026 on 9 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. : 81 of 2026 Decided on : 09.10.2026 Mohammad Sharif …Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Kumar …Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Upasna Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Trigun Singh Negi, Advocate.

Virender Singh, Judge

(Oral) Petitioner­Mohammad Sharif has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 02.06.2025, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 34 of 2020, titled as “Sanjeev Kumar Versus Mohammad Sharif”.

2. By way of order dated 02.06.2025, the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

17 of CPC, filed by the respondent Sanjeev Kumar, in the above titled suit.

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

4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition before this Court, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under:­ 4.1 Plaintiff­Sanjeev Kumar has filed a suit for declaration and possession, against the defendant, seeking the declaration that he may be declared as owner of terrace measuring 73.61 Sq. mtr. of three storeyed building, built upon the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 11/26, Khasra No. 802/189, measuring 57.35 Sq. decimeter and land measuring 24.67 Sq. decimeter being half share, out of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 11/33, Khasra No. 190, measuring 49.36 Sq. decimeter situated in Mohal Kasba Bazar Rampur­I, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, the suit for recovery for a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/­ as principal of three years mense profit on account of principal amount and Rs. 57,600/­ as interest at the rate of 8% and future mense profit and future interest.

5. The said suit has been contested by the defendant, by filing the written statement, in which, he has taken the preliminary objections that the plaintiff is having no cause of action to file the suit, plaintiff is estopped to file the suit on account of his act and conduct, suit is barred by limitation and suit is not maintainable. 5.1 On merits, the suit has been contested on the ground that the plaintiff has shown his dishonest intentions. Terrace was part of sale and no further construction is possible under MC Bye laws and Building Construction Rules. The defendant is absolute owner and right holder of the terrace and plaintiff has no right over the same having sold the staircase as well. As such, prayer has been made to dismiss the suit.

6. During the pendency of the suit, when the case was listed for PWs, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, has been filed, by the plaintiff for amendment of the suit by permitting him to add para 7­ A and 7­B in the plaint and also to add prayer clause a (i)

in the relief clause. The proposed amendment is reproduced, as under:­ “7­A That the plaintiff visited Rampur on 16.02.2023 and found out the water tanks fitted on the top of the terrace were missing and filed a complaint with the police of police station Rampur but to his utter surprise no action was taken by the police and ultimately an application under Right to Information Act was filed for seeking copy of report which was supplied (copy enclosed for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Code). This shows the link of the defendants in the high ups. 7­B That the plaintiff was very surprised, when he visited Rampur in the month of July 2024 and found that the terrace has been occupied by the defendant and he has made material addition and alterations by constructing a storey. (Photographs attached herewith for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court) Recent photographs can be tallied with the previous filed before this Hon’ble Court and the difference can be seen and this act has been done by him during the pendency of the suit and it shows that the defendant has no respect for the law as he wants to show that no terrace ever existed. And it is very strange that Municipal Rampur did not even bother to issue notice for unauthorized construction and this goes a long way to show the links of the defendant in political and departmental arena. (a­i) That the plaintiff be handed over the possession of the terrace by demolishing the structure over it and restoring it to original condition or in the alternative along with the structure be handed over to the plaintiff.”

7. The said amendment is stated to be necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case. According to the plaintiff, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant, if the application is allowed, as the evidence has not yet been started.

8. This application has been contested by the defendant by filing reply, taking preliminary objections that the same is not maintainable and the issues were framed about three years back, when he has filed the written statement and the plaintiff has not led any evidence.

9. Other contentions of the application for amendment, have been denied.

10. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 02.06.2025, has allowed the application for amendment of the plaint, subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/­.

11. The said order has been assailed before this Court.

12. Heard.

13. Admittedly, whatsoever the plaintiff wants to add by paras 7­A and 7­B, in the plaint, is based upon the subsequent events, as in para 7­A, he has pleaded that on 16.02.2023, when he visited Rampur, then he found that the water tanks fitted on the top of the terrace were missing and in para 7­B, he pleaded that in the month of July 2024, when he visited Rampur, he found that the terrace has been occupied by the defendant. On the basis of the above facts, the proposed amendment has been sought and similarly, prayer clause seeking the relief of possession has been sought to be added.

14. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of interference by this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has elaborately been discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan, 2025 INSC 606”. Relevant para 9 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.”

15. In a recent decision in “Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Versus B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors., 2026 INSC 434”, the scope of interference has again been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph 35 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:­ “35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.”

16. Being guided by the above decisions, now this court would proceed further to ascertain the fact that by allowed the amendment, which admittedly is based upon the subsequent events, it can be said that the learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction.

17. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh Versus Natwarlal Shamji Gada, 2026 INSC 416”, then no interference is required to be made in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Relevant paragraph 16 of the judgment is reproduced as under:­ “16. Yet another aspect that goes to the root of the matter is that the tenants challenged the order passed by the Appellate Bench permitting the amendment by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that in exercise of such jurisdiction, it would not be open for the High Court to review or reassess the material that was taken into consideration by the Court while passing the impugned order. In this regard we may usefully refer to the decision in Raj Kumar

Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia 2017 INSC 1240, wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court held as under: “11 ……The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. In Sadhna Lodh v National Insurance Company (2003) 3 SCC 524, this Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227.” Thus, the discretion exercised by the Appellate Bench while allowing the amendment was not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when there was no error of jurisdiction nor a statutory bar for permitting the plaint to be amended based on subsequent events.”

18. No ground has been pointed out in the reply that how the learned trial Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to differ with the conclusion so drawn by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

19. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits, of the case pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, as these observations are confined, only, to the disposal of the present petition.

20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.

(Virender Singh) Judge 09th October, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)