2025:HHC:32560 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 281 of 2024 Decided on : 19.09.2025 Rampal …Petitioner Versus Ravinder Kumar …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Mohit Jaitak, Advocate (through V.C.). For the respondent : Ms. Seema Kaushal Guleria, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 03.04.2024, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, District Una, H.P, in CMA No. 3557 of 2022, in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2018 titled Ravinder Kumar Vs. Rampal, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner herein, under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for amendment in the written statement, was dismissed. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32560 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties ad having perused the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. 3. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant by assigning the following reasons:- “5. Having considerably heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully perused the record, to my mind, the application at hand deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit as the main suit pertains to prohibitory injunction in respect to land comprised in khasra no.535 stated jointly owned and possessed by parties alongwith other co-sharers, whereas by way of the application the applicant/defendant is raising contention in respect to some other land and pertinently having admitted in written statement that the parties are joint owners of suit land comprised in khasra no.535. In the given facts of case the said amendinent do not seem to be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Moreover, not even a single word even namesake is mentioned in the application to explain as to what prevented the 3 2025:HHC:32560 applicant from raising such contention at appropriate stage. Hence, the application at hand is disposed of being dismissed. After registration and completion it be tagged. Announced.” 4. Perusal of application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC demonstrates that it was mentioned therein that the proposed amendments could not be earlier be incorporated in the written statement for the reason that the defendant inadvertently could not state the above facts and they were not in the knowledge of the defendant and subsequently defendant came to know of the said facts. 5. Now, the application is conspicuously silent as to how, when and through whom the information was gained which necessitated the amendment. It is settled law that inadvertence/negligence and due diligence are ante thesis and they cannot coexist. 6. In terms of the amendment carried out in Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC in the year 2002, the parties which approaches the Court for amendment of the pleadings after the commencement of the trial, has to demonstrate due diligence. 7. Apparently in the present case, as the party has 4 2025:HHC:32560 pleaded inadvertence, this clearly demonstrates that ‘due diligence’ on its part was not there. Otherwise also, it is apparent from the order passed by the learned Trial Court that the filing of the application was nothing but an attempt to prolong the issue as the application was filed at a stage when despite reasonable opportunities granted to the defendant to lead evidence, the evidence was not led by the party. 8. Therefore, in these circumstances, as this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 19, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)