2025:HHC:29933 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.279 of 2025 Decided on: 03.09.2025 Shiv Ram … Petitioner Versus Sh. Durga Singh & others … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : M/s Sanjeev Sood and Vivek Thakur, Advocates, for respondents No.1 and 2. No notice issued to respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amending the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Counsel for the respondents and having perused the order under challenge as well as proposed amendments, this Court finds no perversity in the impugned order. 3. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code by observing as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29933 under:- “After going through the nature of the amendments which the plaintiff/applicant intends to be incorporated in his pleading specifically talking about some incident which took place in the month of September, 2019 by the defendant/respondents, raising a boundary dispute, taking away a wood tree from the suit land, about some demarcation which he has applied in the month of May, 2015 but thereafter, it got demarcated on 25.10.2019 and connected proceeding thereof along with some criminal case filed by them against the defendants pending before the Court of learned JMFC Court No. 3, Mandi. While going through the contents of the case as filed originally by the applicant/plaintiff, it is worth to state that the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has been sought by the applicant against the defendant specifically as not to divert the flow and seepage of the rainy water and sewerage tank towards H.P the demise premises and not to cause any interference over the peaceful possession of the plaintiff except the portion of Khasra No. 938 surrounded by Khasra Nos. 929, 941 and 939 through 3 2025:HHC:29933 which the defendants have got easnmentary right by way of prescription to throw the rainy water and further as the defendant be directed to remove the heap of debris stacked upon Khasra No. 937 so on There is is no lota of plea specifically as to the amendment so ight by the applicant in his pleadings. So far as taking away of wood tree or any boundary dispute, further any demarcation being carried out, all these pleas are unconnected with the pleading and the relief sought by the plaintiff. Therefore, these pleadings being unnecessary which is going to change the character and structure of the present suit cannot be allowed being replaced by new cause of action and new set of pleadings to which other party was never subjected. Thus, the application being unnecessary is hereby disallowed and dismissed accordingly. Since, this suit is pending since 2015 and is at the stage of producing PWs, this Court hereby grants one last exceptional opportunity to the plaintiff to produce his entire evidence by the next date of hearing on self responsibility, except for official witnesses for which he can seek assistance of the Court by taking steps for the 4 2025:HHC:29933 same within three days from today lest they shall be produced on self responsibility, in absence thereof, the evidence shall be deemed to be closed by the order of the Court.” 4. In the backdrop of the findings returned by the learned Trial Court, this Court perused the original plaint as well as the proposed amendments. A perusal of the original plaint demonstrates that the suit was filed for prohibitory and mandatory injunction on the plea that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land upon which the plaintiff had constructed his dwelling house and there was a Sehan of the plaintiff in the Sehan mentioned in the plaint, defendants No.1 and 2 were the owners in possession of the land mentioned in Para-2 of the plaint. In order to protect the landed property, houses and cowshed from rainy water of the hill, arrangement of drain was provided by the common ancestors of the parties to the suit. In the month of September and October, 2012, the defendant started throwing debris in the land comprised in khasra No.937 and diverted its flow towards khasra No.938 by throwing this debris and as a result of all this, rainy water of khasra Nos.939 and 937 started flowing towards the house of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant excavated a sewerage tank in their land 5 2025:HHC:29933 and diverted the complete flow of rainy water and seepage tank towards the house of the plaintiff. In this backdrop, the following prayer has been made in the suit:- “Keeping in view the above submissions into consideration it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by passing a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants to not to divert the flow and sipage of the rainy water and sewerage tank towards the suit premises and also not to cause any type of interference into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff except a portion of khasra No. 938 surrounded by khasra os. 929, 941 and 939 through which the defendants have got easmentery right by prescription to throw the rainy water. The defendants may fu ther be directed to remove the heap of debris stocked in khasra No. 937 and remove the slope created towards suit premises by passing a decree of mandatory injunction as a consequential relief and or any other relief which this learned court under the circumstances of the case deems fit nay also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In 6 2025:HHC:29933 the interest of justice and justice be done. The plaintiff shall ever pray” 5. A perusal of the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code demonstrates that what was mentioned therein was that for the demarcation of the suit land and preparation of spot map the plaintiff had applied in the month of May, 2015, but revenue officials did not bother to enter the same in the Peshi Register nor the land was demarcated till 25.10.2019. On 25.10.2019, Field Kanungo neither affixed the boundary of the suit land nor fenced the same. In this backdrop, it was mentioned in the application that the plaintiff intended to incorporate certain amendments in the plaint which are mentioned therein. 6. Having perused the application and the proposed amendments, the only conclusion that can be drawn by is that the proposed amendment are totally alien to the pleadings in the suit that has been originally filed by the plaintiff. In these circumstance, obviously in case these proposed amendments are allowed, then it would introduce a completely new case as form the one on the basis whereof the plaintiff has first approached the Court. This is what has been held by the learned Trial Court also while dismissing the application and this Court concurs with the findings returned by the 7 2025:HHC:29933 learned Trial Court that in case the amendments are allowed, the same would change the character and structure of the suit and would replace the original cause of action with a completely new cause of action and would amount to introduce completely new pleadings. 7. In light of above observation, as this Court finds no infirmity is there in the impugned order, present petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 03, 2025 (Rishi)