1 ( 2025:HHC:20437 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.608 of 2023 Date of Decision : 28.06.2025 Anju …… Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 19.12.2023, passed by Additional Registrar (Judicial). Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against impugned order dated 08.09.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.IV, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby, an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioner/plaintiff, has been rejected. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:20437 ) 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the petition and the impugned orders. 3. From perusal of the suit filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff, it is evident that a decree of declaration qua the present petitioner/plaintiff, being owner in possession of the suit land, i.e. Khasra No.1984 was being sought for. Title was being claimed on Khasra No.1984, by way of sale deed dated 28.11.2008 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of the present petitioner/plaintiff. On the basis of the same, mutation No.9517 was attested on 09.10.2009. The said mutation was reviewed by respondent No.1 and hence, a mandatory injunction was being sought for restoration of the mutation dated 09.10.2009. 4. Admittedly, when the case was listed for arguments, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff, seeking amendment of the Khasra number of the suit. The Khasra number was sought to be changed from 1984 to 1084. 5. On perusal of the sale deed dated 28.11.2008, it is evident that what has been purchased by the present petitioner/plaintiff is Khasra No.1084 and not Khasra No.1984. Besides the aforesaid, in the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, issued to respondent No.1, i.e., ExPW-3/A dated 03.12.2012, Khasra No.1084 and not 1984, has been referred to therein. 6. Other than the aforesaid, from the statement of DW-1, Official, i.e. Patwari appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, it is clear from his 3 ( 2025:HHC:20437 ) examination-in-chief that the suit land understood by respondent No.1 is Khsra No.1084 and not 1984. Besides the aforesaid, it is categorically stated by the counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioner/plaintiff that allowing of the present application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, would not entail leading of any fresh evidence. 7. Order VI Rule 17 CPC reads as follows: "17. Amendment of pleadings. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 8. From a reading of the above provision, it is evident that, (a) amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage; (b) amendment must be necessary to determine the "real question of controversy" "inter se parties"; (c) if such amendment is sought to be brought after commencement of trial the Court must, in allowing the same, come to a conclusion that in spite of best efforts on the part of the party to the suit, the same could not have been brought before the point of time, when it was actually brought. 9. The Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd 2022 SCC Online SC 1128 after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out the following principles:- 4 ( 2025:HHC:20437 ) (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if- (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are - (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.” 10. All that is to be rectified, in the case at hand, is a clerical error. From what has been stated herein supra, it is evident that the parties to the lis clearly understood that the dispute was with respect to Khasra No.1084 and not 1984. No injustice or prejudice shall be caused to the opposite party, 5 ( 2025:HHC:20437 ) if in case the present petition is allowed and amendment, as is sought, is allowed to be made. Rather, the same would help in avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The amendment sought to be made is not mala fide. It will not change the nature of the suit. 11. In the aforesaid facts mentioned here-in-above, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.09.2023 is set aside. The amendment, as is being sought in the present petition, is permitted to be made. Amended plaint is ordered to be taken on record. 12. The respondents are permitted to file their amended written statement. Since parties to the lis understood the dispute to be with respect to Khasra No.1084 and in view of the fact that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioner/plaintiff has categorically submitted that no fresh evidence would be required to be led post amendment, therefore, after filing of the amended written statement, the suit be decided on the basis of evidence already existing on record. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 29.07.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) June 28, 2025 (KS) Judge