CMPMO/484/2026 on 8 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.484 of 2026

Decided on: 08.10.2026

Kuldeep Singh

…. Petitioner

Versus

Mohinder Singh

...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

The instant petition arises out of order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Dharamshala, dated 19.05.2026, whereby the application filed by the counter-claimant for amendment of the counter-claim came to be allowed.

2. The facts, as emerge in the present case, are that the present petitioner, Kuldeep Singh, filed a suit for the grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant himself, his agents, family members, representatives, etc., from raising any type of construction on any portion of the suit land, collecting building materials and changing its nature in any manner whatsoever by encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff comprised in Khata No. 63, Khatauni No. 100, Khasra No.

645/205, measuring 0-02-60 hectare, situated at Mohal Hodal, Mauza Ghaniyara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

3. As per the case set up by the plaintiff, it was pleaded that he is in possession of the suit land and is constructing a house after completing all codal formalities from the department concerned. It was alleged that the defendant is a headstrong person having no regard for law, who threatened the plaintiff to lodge a false report with the police at Police Station, Dharamshala, on 26/27.12.2013. It was averred that the defendant, by encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff, started collecting construction material and digging the plaintiff's land adjacent to the boundary, without even leaving the appropriate setbacks. Therefore, under such circumstances, the suit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for the grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant.

4. The said suit came to be resisted by the present respondent by filing a comprehensive written statement. All the allegations levelled in the plaint were specifically refuted and denied. Along with the written statement, the defendant filed a counter-claim and prayed for the grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering in any manner, digging, collecting material or raising any construction by encroaching over the suit land comprised in Khata No.61, Khatauni No.97, Khasra No. 603/203, measuring 00-02-90 hectare, situated at Mohal Hodal, Mauza Khaniara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra.

5. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that in criminal proceedings initiated by the defendant, the matter was compromised inter se the parties and based upon the said compromise, the present petitioner/plaintiff withdrew his civil suit.

6. During the pendency of the counter-claim, an application came to be filed by the defendant/respondent seeking amendment of the counter-claim. In the application filed for amendment, it was stated that during the pendency of the counter-claim and in the absence of the counter-claimant, the non-counter-claimant raised construction on the common boundary wall of the parties, which wall existed in between the boundary of the land of the parties.

7. As per application, during the pendency of the civil suit, a compromise was effected between the parties and as per the statement of the non-counter-claimant, he had agreed not to raise any construction on the common boundary wall and also agreed to plaster the common boundary wall towards his own side. Further, it was agreed that the counter-claimant would also plaster and maintain the alleged common wall towards his own side and based upon the statements of the parties, the criminal case was compounded.

8. It has been stated in the application that instead of adhering to the terms and conditions of the compromise and in flagrant violation thereof, the non-counter-claimant raised construction on the common boundary wall. Therefore, under such circumstances, the counter-claimant intends to amend his counter-claim to the extent that at the end of the counter-claim, after the word "Khasra No. 603/203", the counter-claimant wants to add the following averments:

“and also directing the non-counter claimant to demolish the newly raised construction on the common boundary wall in absence of counter claimant during the pendency of counter claim having no right to raise any construction on the said common boundary Wall as agreed vide statement dated 04/12/2014 given by the non-counter claimant before the court of LD Chief Judicial magistrate Dharamsala in a criminal Case titled as state of H.P. Vs Kuldip case no. 48-II/2014."

9. The said application was resisted by the present petitioner by raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action, etc. On merits, all the averments made in the application were specifically refuted and denied. It was denied that the present petitioner has raised any new construction on the common boundary wall or that he has not adhered to the compromise. It was stated that it is the applicant/counter-claimant who has not adhered to the compromise and has not withdrawn the counter-claim as per the terms and conditions entered into inter se the parties in the said compromise.

10. The learned trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 19.05.2026, allowed the application for amendment filed by the counter-claimant.

11. Feeling dissatisfied, the non-counter- claimant/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. It is contended by Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the learned Court below has not adhered to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has wrongly allowed the application, which is not maintainable in its present form. He further submitted that after accepting the present petition, the application filed by the counter- claimant for amendment of the counter-claim deserves to be rejected.

13. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Tarun Brakta, learned counsel for the respondent, has defended the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. He submitted that this Court, while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Court below.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

15. In the present case, the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering, constructing or making any encroachment over the suit land. The said suit was duly resisted by the present respondent and along with the written statement, a counter-claim was also filed by him. A compromise was effected between the parties, the statements in respect of which have been placed on record and as per the same, it was agreed upon that the present respondent shall not press the criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioner and thereafter the present petitioner was to withdraw the civil suit filed by him.

16. In the application filed for amendment of the counter- claim, it has been stated that in violation of the compromise, the present petitioner raised construction on the common boundary wall during the pendency of the proceedings. It is the case of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that, being a subsequent event, the said amendment is necessary and also goes to the root of the case and shall not prejudice the rights of the present petitioner.

17. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “17. Amendment of pleadings: -The Court may at any stage at the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and no 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."

18. The respondent has raised the plea that he intends to amend the counter-claim on the basis of subsequent developments that have taken place in the present proceedings. As rightly held by the learned trial Court, merely incorporating the amendment will not prove the case of the respondent and the same has to be proved in accordance with law. More so, by the amendment intended to be incorporated, the present petitioner shall get an opportunity to file written statement to the amended counter-claim filed by the present respondent.

19. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction in a legal and valid manner and sustainable in the eyes of law and there is no perversity or illegality in the same. As the amendment sought is subsequent in time and the same goes to the root of the case no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner. Neither it changes the nature or character of the counter claim nor it intends to withdraw any admission. Therefore, the said amendment will help the Court to adjudicate and determine the point in controversy properly and effectively.

20. From a perusal of the amendment sought to be incorporated, it appears that no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner and the same is clarificatory and explanatory in nature. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

21. The power under Article 227 is limited to see that the Courts below function within the limits of their authority or jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the findings of

fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, over the last 50 years, it has consistently been observed that the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with findings of fact or by setting aside the judgments of the courts below on merits.

22. Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010, titled State of Haryana & others vs. Manoj Kumar, decided on 09.03.2010 has held as follows: - “23. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of this court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction.

24. This court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath's case in a subsequent judgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu AIR 1963 SC 1895. The court observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority.

25. This court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566. The court observed as under:-

"The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."

26. This court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

27. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it.

28. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits.

29. This court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.”

23. To the similar extent, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022, titled as Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, decided on 13.05.2022 has held as follows: - “14. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58 (1) (a) (iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised.

14.1 The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has been consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC Online SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigor of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

24. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

25. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 16.10.2026.

26. The observations made hereinabove are meant only for adjudication of the present proceedings and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case.

( Romesh Verma )

Judge

8th October, 2026

(vt)