2025:HHC:19648 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.593 of 2022 Decided on: 25.06.2025 Shakuntla Devi & others ….Petitioner Versus Balbir Singh & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate (through Video Conferencing). Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 22.08.2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.3, District Una, H.P. in Civil Suit No.73-1/22/12, whereby the application of the petitioners herein for amendment of written statement has been rejected. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of petition are that the petitioners being defendants are contesting the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff with the plea that the petitioners/defendants are in permissive possession of the suit land by virtue of agreement executed by the plaintiff with the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. 2 3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that he is owner-in-possession of the suit land. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants filed an application for amendment of written statement. The amendment sought to be incorporated by the defendants is as under: “In view of this factual and legal position, the defendants have been coming in open, hostile, continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit land right from 2.11.1973, as is evident from the mere fact that the answering defendants and Amin Chand are in physical possession of the suit land since 2.11.1973 and they have been held to be in lawful possession of the suit in view of the judgment and decree dated 16.01.1981, passed in Civil suit No. 592/78 rendered by the Ld. Senior Sub Judge, Una.” 5. Thus, by way of amendment, the defendants are seeking to take a plea of adverse possession over the suit land. 6. It is more than settled that the plea of permissive and adverse possession cannot co-exist. Both are mutually self- destructive. Learned trial Court has also declined the prayer of the petitioners for the same reason. Since, the impugned order is based on well settled position of law, it requires no interference. 3 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge June 25, 2025 (vt)