IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.494 of 2024 Decided on: 13.03.2025 Inder Jeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Om Prakash ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral) Challenge has been laid to order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. in CMA No.335/2021 in Civil Suit No.356/2013, whereby the application for amendment of written statement filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and possession against the petitioner/defendant in respect of land comprised in Khata No.90, Khatouni No.113, Khasras No.700 and 707, measuring 0-03-56 Hects, situated in Mohal Kalashwer, Tehsil Rakker, District Kangra, H.P. 2 3. The petitioner/defendant has been contesting the suit and has filed a written statement. The averments made in the plaint have been denied in generality by way of written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant. 4. During the pendency of suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of written statement. Amendment has been sought to be made by raising a plea that the respondent/plaintiff in connivance with revenue staff has got prepared wrong revenue entries and the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to benefit of such wrong entries. The petitioner/defendant contended that he was not aware about such wrong revenue entries and it came to his notice only when the suit land was demarcated by the Local Commissioner during the pendency of suit and demarcation report dated 11.01.2018 was submitted. In this way, the petitioner/defendant has submitted that he could not file the amendment application earlier. 5. Despite notice, none has chosen to represent the respondent in this petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the documents placed on record. 7. The application for amendment has been rejected by learned trial Court primarily on two grounds, firstly that the 3 petitioner/defendant had not shown due diligence and secondly that the amendment, if allowed, will change the defence of the petitioner/defendant. 8. As regards the absence of due diligence, the petitioner/defendant had specifically averred that he was not aware about any change unauthorizedly made in the revenue entries, which fact came to his notice only in January, 2018 when the demarcation was conducted. Though, the respondent/plaintiff filed a reply to the application for amendment of written statement, but nothing specific was placed on record to show that the petitioner/defendant was aware about such entries before the time as alleged by him. Otherwise also, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner/defendant has raised a false plea. From the material on record, his bonafides also cannot be doubted. 9. It is more than settled that the defendant can take more than one pleas in a written statement and in certain cases these can be inconsistent also. The observation of the learned trial Court that amendment if allowed, will change the nature of defence, may not be material for adjudication of the application. 10. What is required to be seen is whether the amendment is necessary for adjudication of issues involved in the suit. From the material available on record it cannot be said that 4 the fact sought to be pleaded by way of amendment was alien to the dispute or was not necessary for proper and complete adjudication of the matter. 11. In case the amendment is allowed, the respondent/plaintiff will get sufficient opportunity to rebut the same. There is no likelihood of any prejudice or irreversible loss being caused to respondent/plaintiff by allowance of amendment. The procedural law is hand maid of justice and it cannot be allowed to scuttle the substantive rights of the parties. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 25.06.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. in CMA No.335/2021 in Civil Suit No.356/2013 is set aside. Application for amendment being CMA No.335 of 2021 filed by the petitioner/defendant is allowed. (Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 13th March, 2025 (vt)