2025:HHC:22035 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.350/2023 Date of Decision: 09th July, 2025. Besi Devi and Another .....Petitioners Versus Sohan Lal …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). Present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.02.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Manali, District Kullu, HP, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, filed by the present respondent/plaintiff before the learned trial Court, has been allowed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the impugned order. 3. Admittedly, in the case at hand, a suit was filed by the present respondent on 28.04.2017. The suit so filed was the simplicitor suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the present 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:22035 petitioners/defendants from causing obstruction/unlawful interference on the suit land. The suit land was claimed to be owned and possessed by the present respondent/plaintiff. Relevant jamabandi to this extent had been placed on record. Along with the suit so preferred, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, was also filed. Written statement/reply to the application, seeking interim injunction was filed by the present petitioners/defendants. No replication was filed on behalf of the present respondent/plaintiff. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 28.08.2017, passed in application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, restrained the present petitioners/defendants from interfering and encroaching upon the suit land during the pendency of the suit. Issues were framed on 18.01.2018. The present respondent/plaintiff has concluded its evidence. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, an application seeking amendment was filed by the present 3 2025:HHC:22035 respondent/plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The application was filed on 21.09.2021. By virtue of the said application, subsequent developments, which had taken place, during the pendency of the suit were sought to be recorded. It is specifically averred in the application that in the month of January 2020, the present respondent/plaintiff, had gone out of station in connection with personal work and the present petitioners/defendants had encroached upon the suit land. The same came into the notice of the present respondent/plaintiff only in March 2020, when he came back. The present application on account of pandemic could only be filed on 21.09.2021 i.e. first date on which the Court resumed the proceedings, in the case at hand, before the learned trial Court. 6. Based on the aforesaid subsequent developments, amendment of the relief was also sought, as the subsequent developments necessitated seeking of decree of mandatory injunction/possession qua the suit land alleged to have been encroached upon by the present petitioners/defendants. 4 2025:HHC:22035 7. In view of the aforesaid, application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the present respondent/plaintiff before the learned trial Court, was allowed. The same was allowed by the learned trial Court in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It was observed by the learned trial Court that no prejudice, shall be caused to the present petitioners/defendants, if in case, the present application for amendment is allowed. 8. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced. After the commencement of trial, an application for amendment can only be allowed once the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the absolute discretion to allow amendment, at any stage, therefore stands curtailed. In this regard, a reference can be made to (2019) 4 5 2025:HHC:22035 SCC 332 titled as M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma (dead) by legal representatives and others. 9. The plaintiff has correctly alleged the cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. 10. Law with respect to amendment of pleadings has been dealt with in detail in case reported 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615, Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Aggarwal (Bindal) and Others. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- ……. “11.1 The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such power. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das6 it was held as under: “16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice 6 2025:HHC:22035 to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. [Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar (1990) 1 SCC 166.]” 11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.7 , after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:- (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if – a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time- barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are – 7 2025:HHC:22035 (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.” 11. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation inter se the parties, it would be sound exercise of discretion to permit the amendment being sought for. Besides the aforesaid, keeping in view the parameters laid down by the Apex Court, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.02.2023, passed by the learned trial Cour in the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit, so also the pending application(s), if any. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 29.07.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 09th July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)