2025:HHC:13583 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.271/2022. Date of Decision: 09th May, 2025. Gurdial Singh & Ors. .....Petitioners Versus Amar Singh & Ors. …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 03.12.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasauli, District Solan, HP in Cr. M.A No.810 of 2019, whereby an application filed by the defendants for amendment of the Counter Claim has been disallowed. 2. The respondents No.1 & 2 had filed a suit for injunction before the trial court, titled Gurdial Singh and Others Vs. Amar Singh and Others, wherein they availed interim relief in their favor. The petitioners filed written statement as well as counter claim, both dated 30.07.2016 against the respondents for the decree of declaration on account of adverse possession and for permanent prohibitory injunction in their favour. On 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:13583 04.02.2019, the petitioners filed an application for amendment in the counter claim, by virtue of which they sought to correct a typographical mistake in para 2 of the suit. 3. Per Contra, it was contended that the respondent had filed the application with oblique motives just to delay the matter and the same had been moved at a belated stage i.e. after the closing of their evidence and after recording of the evidence of three witnesses on behalf of the present petitioner. 4. The trial Court while disallowing the application held that the applicants had filed the application at a belated stage i.e. after three witnesses of the defendants had already been examined and had also failed to prove that in spite of due diligence, they could not have moved this application earlier. Also, it was not explicitly clear from the pleadings, as to what sort of relief applicants were seeking from the court. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings appended along with the petition. 6. The entire object of the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of an application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and to ensure that the parties have sufficient knowledge of each other’s case. 7. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has 3 2025:HHC:13583 commenced. After the commencement of trial, an application for amendment can only be allowed once the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the absolute discretion to allow amendment, at any stage, therefore stands curtailed. In this regard, a reference can be made to (2019) 4 SCC 332 titled as M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma (dead) by legal representatives and others. 8. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term “due diligence” is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial. The term “due diligence” determines the scope of a party’s constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit. In this respect, a reference can be made to (2012) 2 SCC 300 titled as J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others. 9. In the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, conspicuous by absence are pleadings to the effect that in spite 4 2025:HHC:13583 of due diligence, the present respondents could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 by passing the impugned order dated 03.12.2021. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 28.05.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 09th May, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)