( 2025:HHC:29320 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 53 of 2020 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025. Kaushlya Devi .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Shanti & Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Dhanwanti, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.03.2020, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in CMA No. 81/6 of 2020, filed in Civil Suit No. 74/1 of 19/07, titled Kaushlya Devi Vs. Shanti & Ors, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC by the present petitioner (plaintiff) before the trial Court, seeking amendment of plaint, has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended along with the present petition. 3. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed, when the matter was posted for final arguments. 4. From a perusal of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC by the present petitioner, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2( 2025:HHC:29320 ) it is evident that primarily by way of the amendment being sought to be made in the plaint, a plea with respect to a challenge to the revenue entries was sought to be made and further certain other properties was sought to be incorporated in the suit, in the case at hand. In response to the aforesaid application, specific objections were taken by the present respondents mainly with respect to the limitation (time barred claims), Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC estoppel and mala fide intent in the moving of the application so filed. 5. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, primarily on the basis of the proviso incorporated in Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in the year 2002. 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 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. This rule had been on the statute for ages and there was hardly a suit or proceeding where this provision had not been used. That was the reason it evoked much controversy leading to 3( 2025:HHC:29320 ) protest all over the country. 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 (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). 4( 2025:HHC:29320 ) 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 petitioner who got prepared the plaint, signed and verified, the plaint has not shown due diligence at all. As had the petitioner shown due diligence at the time of filing the plaint at the very inception in the plaint all amendments now sought to be made should have been incorporated. Even, otherwise, allowing the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, at this stage, would cause grave prejudice to the respondents especially keeping in view the preliminary objection taken by the respondent in the reply filed to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 11. In view of the above stated, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order, therefore, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 11.09.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 29th August, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)