IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 1022 of 2019 Decided on 28th July 2025 Chet Ram and another …Petitioners Versus Thakur Singh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged order passed by the learned Court below dated 09.09.2019, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. 2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order as well as documents 2 appended with the petition, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the impugned order. 3. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was listed for arguments on 16.08.2019 when the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 praying for amendment of the petition. Copy of the application is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1. In terms of the averments made in this application, the reason as to why the application was being filed at the belated stage was that they were not aware about a Fard Partal of Jamabandi for the year 1962-63 which thereafter, came to their knowledge and which they intended to place on record, in terms of the contents whereof they intended to amend the plaint. 4. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the learned Court below took into consideration the fact that by way of proposed amendment, the plaintiffs was raising a plea contrary to its earlier stand as was taken in the main suit. Learned Court further held that the plea if allowed would change the basic structure of the plaint. It also held that both the parties had already lead their evidence and the case was 3 listed for arguments and at this stage in case amendment was allowed, then, the contrary pleas being taken by the plaintiffs would prejudice the rights of the non-applicants. Learned Court also observed that the Civil Suit was filed in the year 2006, wherein, twice the judgment was announced and the matter for some reason or the other stood remanded back and in this backdrop, filing of the application at a belated stage was not acceptable as the plaintiffs were not able to prima facie demonstrate that they had recently come to know about the existence of the Fard Partal despite due diligence. 5. This Court is of the considered view that the findings so returned by the learned trial Court call for no interference. Though, this Court is not oblivious to the fact that the amendment can be allowed at any stage and further, the Court should be liberal as far as grant of amendments are concerned, but, in terms of the provisions of under 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, if a party is seeking amendment after the trial has commenced, then, it has to demonstrates due diligence. The application is conspicuously silent with regard to the exercise of due diligence by the petitioners. It has not been 4 mentioned therein that the Fard Jamabandi was not in their knowledge before filing of the application and as to how they came to know about the existence of the said documents when they filed the application praying for amendment in the plaint. Therefore, it is but obvious that the plaintiffs were aware of this document and at a belated stage they could not have been allowed to amend the plaint without explaining due diligence. 6. Accordingly, in the light of above observations, as this Court does not finds any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court below, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 28, 2025 (Vinod)