2025:HHC:27250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.376 of 2020 Decided on: 12.08.2025 Sarav Dutt … Petitioner Versus Shri Manohar Lal Tomar & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Sarvedaman Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 4-State. None for respondent No.3. No notice issued to respondents No.5 to 8. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the order passed by learned Trial Court in an application filed by the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, in terms whereof, the application praying for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that the learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that cogent 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27250 reasons stood mentioned in the application necessitating the amendment. He submitted that certain documents which earlier were not in the knowledge of the petitioner, subsequently came to his knowledge and on the strength of these documents necessary amendment was being prayed for. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Court below erred in not appreciating that as certain developments took place during the pendency of the suit, this also necessitated amendment in the plaint and therefore, dismissal of the application of the petitioner was totally unjustified. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition be allowed, as prayed for. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu Versus Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the absence of due-diligence being pleaded and demonstrated by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court, the Court rightly rejected the application filed seeking amendment of the plaint. He submitted that the endeavour of the petitioner was nothing, but to fill up the lacunae in the case. He submitted that perusal of the application demonstrates that there is an admission of negligence on the part of the petitioner and so called events which 3 2025:HHC:27250 allegedly took place during the pendency of the civil suit, also did not confer any right upon the petitioner to seek amendment in the light of the prayers already made in the original suit. He further submitted that the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be used by a party to fill up the lacunae and in this backdrop as there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court, this petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 5. The civil suit in issue was filed in the year 2016 and it was at the stage of leading of plaintiff’s evidence that the application was filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for amendment of the plaint. The application is appended with this petition as Annexure P-1. 6. Besides mentioning therein, as to what the proposed amendments were, the reasons spelled out in the application as to why the proposed amendments could not be incorporated at the time of the filing of the plaint were that without amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff would not be able to prove his case. It was 4 2025:HHC:27250 mentioned in the application that at the time of drafting the plaint, the petitioner could not arrange the documents, i.e. Pedigree Table and certain old Jamabandies which were necessary to prove the case and therefore, the the petitioner could not get adequate interim relief. This necessitated the amendment in the plaint. It was also mentioned in the application that during the pendency of the civil suit, defendant No.1 took the entire amount of the plaintiff as also proforma defendants and this also necessitated amendment. 7. Now incidently, a perusal of the original civil suit filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff, copy thereof was made available for the perusal of the Court by learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrates that already there is a relief prayed therein to the effect that the amount of compensation already received by defendant/respondent No.1 may be recovered from him. In light of said relief already being there, the issue of alleged amount received by defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit, can be taken care of by the learned Trial Court at the stage of adjudication of the case. 8. As far as the other proposed amendments are concerned, in the entire application there is not even a whisper as 5 2025:HHC:27250 to why, what the petitioner intended to incorporate by way of seeking the amendment could not have been earlier incorporated by the petitioner at the time of filing of the plaint despite due- diligence. 9. In terms of the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code as they stand amended in the year 2002, before any amendment being prayed for by the parties is allowed by the Court, it has to be satisfied that the proposed amendments could not be incorporated in the pleadings by the parties despite due-diligence. This is a mandatory condition that has been incorporated in the proviso that is incorporated in Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pandit Malhari Mahale Versus Monika Pandit Mahale and Others, (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 549, has been pleased to reiterate that a Court cannot grant amendment in the pleadings unless a finding is returned that the Court is satisfied that in-spite of due-diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 11. Coming back to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to by the petitioner, Hon’ble Court has 6 2025:HHC:27250 held therein that any amendment which is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties is to be allowed by the Court at any stage. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been pleased to hold that due diligence need not be demonstrated by the applicant. 12. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to cross the hurdle of due-diligence. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the application is conspicuously silent with regard to due-diligence. In this backdrop, if one peruses the impugned order, one finds that there is no infirmity therein. Learned Trial Court has rightly held that the intent of the petitioner was nothing, but to fill up the lacunae and more so, after the dismissal of the applications filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code as also the appeal against the said order by the learned Appellate Court. Learned Trial Court has also rightly held that the intent of the petitioner was to plead the facts which were discussed in the order that was passed by the Court while deciding the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and the subsequent appeal which arose from the adjudication from this application and in the absence of there being sufficient cause of due-diligence demonstrated, the 7 2025:HHC:27250 application could not be allowed. 13. As this Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court and sees no reason to interfere with the findings returned therein, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12, 2025 (Rishi)