2025:HHC:33725 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 158 of 2025 Decided on: 26.09.2025 Ajay Pal Singh … Petitioner Versus Nimerpreet Singh and others .… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Divya Raj Singh, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Vivek Shrma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) As per report of the Registry, respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 stand duly served. Presence was put in on their behalf by learned Counsel on 24.07.2025, on which date, the case was adjourned for 02.09.2025. On 02.09.2025, none appeared for said respondents and in the interest of justice, the matter was listed for 18.09.2025. On 18.09.2025 also, none appeared for the respondents and the case was fixed for today. Today also, as none is appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 to 6, accordingly, said respondents are proceeded against ex parte. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2025, passed by learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:33725 application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the suit was at the initial stage and some of the defendants were yet to be served and written statement was not filed by all of the defendants, the dismissal of the application in terms of the impugned order is not sustainable. He submits that necessity for filing of the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was that it was realized in light of the dispute involved that besides the relief of injunction, relief of declaration was also necessary. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that otherwise also taking into consideration the stage of the suit when the application was filed, no prejudice would have been caused to the parties, if the proposed amendment was allowed in light of the fact that trial has not started and the plaintiff was not withdrawing any admission already made in the plaint, therefore, the order is harsh. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that as far as adjudication of this application is concerned, the said respondent has no objection. 5. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and having carefully gone through the impugned order as well as documents appended therewith including the original plaint and the proposed amendment, this Court is of the considered view that in 3 2025:HHC:33725 light of the fact that the suit was at the initial stage and trial has not started and the endeavour of the plaintiff was not to withdraw admissions already made in the plaint, interest of justice would have been served, had the plaintiff been allowed to amend the plaint. Even if it is to be taken that by way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff was going to set a new case, then also, as trial has not started, it would not cause any prejudice to anyone. 6. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, in the peculiar facts of this case, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.01.2025 is set aside and the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also allowed and the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the proposed amendments in the plaint. Amended plaint is also ordered to be taken on record. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 26, 2025 (narender)