( 2025:HHC:28873 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 438 of 2019 Decided on: 26.08.2025 ____________________________________________________ Bhanu Devi & Ors. ……….. Petitioners Versus Kamla Devi & Ors. ……….Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral) The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 05.08.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan, in CM No. 498- CM/6/2019 in Civil Appeal No. 17-CA/13 of 2017, titled Bhanu Devi & Ors. Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors., whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the present petitioners, seeking amendment of plaint, has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:28873 ) 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended along with the present petition. 3. The petitioners were the plaintiffs before the trial Court. A suit for declaration had been filed by the present petitioners, wherein challenge was laid to the mutation of inheritance made in favour of the present respondents on the death of the father of the present petitioners i.e., Shri. Parduman Singh. The suit so filed was dismissed. 4. Against the same, an appeal was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by the present petitioners. 5. In the application so filed, the pleadings sought to be incorporated was with respect to the fact that the suit property, in the case at hand is a coparcenary property as it had come to their father i.e., Late Sh. Parduman Singh from his grand father i.e., one Shri. Lakshman Singh. 6. Order 6 Rule 17 reads as follows: “17. Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such 2 ( 2025:HHC:28873 ) 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 commences, 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.” 7. With a view to shorten the litigation and speed up the trial of cases Rule 17 was omitted by amending Act 46 of 1999. Thereafter, the rule was restored in its original form by amending Act 22 of 2002 with a rider in the shape of the proviso limiting the power of amendment to some extent. 8. The proviso limits the power to allow amendment after the commencement of trial but grants discretion to the court to allow amendment if it feels that the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial in spite of due diligence. 9. The words "due diligence" has not been defined in the Code. According to Oxford Dictionary (Edition 2006), the word "diligence" means careful and persistent application or effort. "Diligent" means careful and steady in application to one's work and duties, showing care and effort. As per Black's Law Dictionary 3 ( 2025:HHC:28873 ) (Eighth Edition), "diligence" means a continual effort to accomplish something, care; caution; the attention and care required from a person in a given situation. "Due diligence" means the diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation. According to Words and Phrases by Drain-Dyspnea (Permanent Edition 13A) "due diligence", in law, means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible. "Due diligence" means reasonable diligence; it means such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs. (See 2008 (5) SCC 117, Chander Kanta Bansal Vs. Rajinder Singh Anand). 10. An Advocate representing a party must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made in the pleadings on behalf of the party are factually accurate and sufficient. Similarly, a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipatory relief must also show due diligence. In fact, in the case at hand, the petitioners who got prepared the plaint, signed and verified, the plaint has not shown due diligence at all. 11. Even otherwise, the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 ( 2025:HHC:28873 ) This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 12. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated here-in-above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 17.09.2025. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge August 26, 2025 Shamsh Tabrez 5