2025:HHC:29039 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 1094 of 2019 Decided on : 27.08.2025 Ashwani Kumar (deceased) through his Lrs. and others …Petitioners Versus Chuhnu Ram and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents : Respondent No.8 exparte vide order dated 16.03.2020. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 14.11.2019, passed by learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC) praying for amendment of plaint, by the present petitioners, has been dismissed. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29039 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner ad having perused the impugned order, this Court does not find any infirmity therein. 3. Perusal of the record demonstrates that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2008 for grant of decree of possession of land and for consequential relief for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, cutting trees, changing the nature of the suit land. The written statement to the plaint was also filed in the year 2008. The application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC was filed on 11.09.2019, by mentioning therein that though the plaintiffs, in the body of the plaint had mentioned that defendants No.1 and 2 had mischievously and in connivance with Patwari Halka, got themselves recorded as tenants in the suit land and subsequently also were able to have the mutation attested in their favour in the year 2003, which was wrong and illegal, but inadvertently by sheer mistake, plaintiffs omitted to seek the declaration that entry of defendants No.1 and 2 in the revenue record as tenant was wrong, illegal, void and liable to be declared as such and that mutation No. 451, dated 21.04.2003 3 2025:HHC:29039 was also wrong and illegal, having been entered behind the back of the plaintiffs and was thus null and void. 4. It was further mentioned in the application that the plaintiffs at the time of the filing of the suit, inadvertently and due to oversight, left out the name of Baldev son of Kishu Ram, as one of the defendants and on account of inadvertence, plaintiffs also omitted to include relief in the prayer clause with respect to declaration that sale deed dated 19.09.2003, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendants No.3, 4 and 4(a) was wrong, illegal, null and void. Besides, as the name of Akshay Kumar son of late Jagdish Chand as one of the plaintiffs was also inadvertently omitted, therefore, the plaintiffs be allowed to amend the plaint in terms of the averments made in the application. 5. The application was opposed by non-applicants and in terms of the impugned order, the application was rejected by the learned Trial Court by holding that as the plaintiffs were not able to demonstrate due diligence, the application was liable to be dismissed. As far as the prayer made for impleadment of Akshay Kumar as plaintiff is concerned, the same was rejected 4 2025:HHC:29039 by the learned Trial Court by holding that since the plaintiffs failed to take steps for impleadment of the proposed parties despite prompt objection from the defendants in the written statement, therefore, in terms of the law declared by this Court in Smt. Shyampati Vs. Munshi Ram and others, (2002) 1 SLC 328, the plaintiffs can not be allowed to implead such party. 6. This Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the case, the findings returned, in terms of the impugned order, do not call for any intervention. 7. It is a matter of record that as preliminary objection was taken in the written statement by the defendants with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties, filing of application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC after almost a decade, was completely unjustifiable and rejection thereof by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted with. 8. Similarly, the rejection of the application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC is concerned, in terms of the said statutory provision, after the commencement of trial, such an application can be allowed only if the party is able to demonstrate due diligence. 5 2025:HHC:29039 9. In the present case, the amendments are being sought on the ground of negligence. In terms of the averments made in the application, what is now being proposed to be added in the plaint is not something which is a result of subsequent developments. As per the applicants, what they intended to incorporate by way of amendment, could not be earlier incorporated because of inadvertence and negligence on their part. This Court has time and again held that negligence and due diligence are antithesis. When the plaintiffs themselves have admitted negligence on their part, then this negligence of theirs cannot be given premium by allowing them to amend the plaint after 10 years and thus introduce facts which were not earlier pleaded. In fact, not only this, proposed amendment if allowed, would also result in a completely new case being put forth by the plaintiffs and that too after the remand of the case by the learned Appellate Court to the learned Trial Court. 10. Therefore, in light of above discussion, as this Court finds no valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court, this petition is dismissed. Pending 6 2025:HHC:29039 miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 27, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)