IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.519 of 2022 Decided on 11th September, 2025 Parma Nand …Petitioner Versus Ishwar Dass and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition including the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2 3. It is not in dispute that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was filed at the stage when the case was listed for arguments. However, a perusal of the application demonstrates that the only amendment which was prayed for by the plaintiff was that as inadvertently the date of the Will in dispute stood mentioned in the plaint as 03.07.1975 instead of 30.08.1975, the plaintiff be allowed to amend the plaint by substituting the date of the Will from 03.07.1975 to 30.08.1975. 4. Learned Trial Court has rejected this application inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had not exercised due diligence in the matter and as there was enough material on record from which it could be gathered that had the plaintiff exercised due diligence, it could have had done the needful earlier. 5. This Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of this case, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is harsh. Though, this Court does not questions the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court that after the commencement of trial a party has to demonstrate ‘due diligence’ while seeking amendment and in the present case due diligence 3 was not exercised by the plaintiff, otherwise there was no occasion for the plaintiff to have had filed this application at such a belated stage, but taking into consideration the proposed amendment that was being prayed for, no prejudice would have had being caused to the defendant had the amendment been allowed. 6. The Court is making this observation for the reason that whereas in the plaint, it was pleaded that the Will which was being assailed by the plaintiff was dated 03.07.1975, in the written statement also, the defendant defended this peculiar Will by mentioning therein the date of the Will to be 03.07.1975 also. It was only when the original Will was placed on record by the defendant it stood ascertained that actually the date of the Will was 30.08.1975. 7. Therefore, in the light of the fact that there is no dispute that there is only one Will which is subject matter of the Civil Suit and said Will actually is dated 30.08.1975, this petition is allowed, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to amend the plaint to the extent prayed for in the application. 4 8. This of course will be subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. Out of this amount, 5,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to the defendant by way of bank draft and 5,000/- in the Chief Justice Relief Fund, 2025. The cost of Rs.5,000/- will be paid to the defendant on the date of appearance before the learned Court below which will be fixed by this Court itself. As this Court has allowed the amendment as was prayed for by the plaintiff, defendant is hereby granted time to file amended written statement thereto, which be filed on or before the next date of hearing or within such time as the learned Trial Court be given. 9. Parties through counsel to appear before the learned Trial Court on 28.10.2025. It is clarified that in lieu of the amendments which have been permitted by this Court, the parties shall not be allowed to lead any further evidence etc., and the matter will have to be decided on the strength of the evidence already on record. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 11, 2025 (Vinod)