2025:HHC:27886 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 405 of 2019 Decided on: 19.08.2025 Sh. Daulat Ram … Petitioner Versus Sh. Inder Singh .… Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : M/s Sumeet Raj Sharma and Ritu Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Sandeep Datta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(1) The order dated 18.04.2019 Passed By Learned Civil Judge Senior Division Kasauli District Solan H.P. In Civil Suit No. 58/1 Of 2016, Titled As Daulat Ram Versus Inder Singh Whereby C.M.P. No. 7-6 Of 2018 Under Order 6 Rule 17 Read With Section 151 Cpc has been ordered to be dismissed may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application may kindly be ordered to be allowed.” 2. In terms of the impugned order, the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27886 Procedure has been dismissed by learned Trial Court. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It is a matter of record that the application was filed seeking amendment in the pleadings by the present petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the learned Court below, after the commencement of the trial and after availing five opportunities to lead evidence. Not only this, the reasons mentioned in the application seeking amendment of the plaint besides not demonstrating due diligence, otherwise also, if are acceded to and the petitioner is allowed to amend the plaint as prayed for, the same would amount to introducing a totally new case as compared to the one filed by the petitioner originally. This is not the intent of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a party by invoking the said provision cannot be allowed to fill up the lacunae in its case. 4. The original suit filed by the plaintiff is for recovery of Rs.10,50,000/- from the defendant. The petitioner has to succeed in the said suit on the basis of averments made in the plaint. 5. The intention in introducing the amendment was nothing but an endeavour to improve the pleadings and to fill up lacunae which is not permissible in law. 6. Otherwise also, whether or not the petitioner is entitled 3 2025:HHC:27886 to for recovery of suit amount from the defendant has to be established by the plaintiff/petitioner on the basis of the pleadings and evidence that he leads and what payment has been received by the defendant from the Department concerned, obviously, shall not be having any bearing on this issue. This is exactly what has been held to by learned Trial Court while dismissing the application. 7. Besides this, the findings returned by the learned Trial Court are duly borne out from the record of the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that said findings are perverse or not borne out from the record of the case. 8. Therefore, in view of above observations, this petition is dismissed but with the observations that dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to place said documents, on the basis of which the amendment has been sought, on record, otherwise in accordance with law, as prayed for. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 19, 2025 (narender)