IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.658 of 2022 Decided on 11th September, 2025 Prem Lal alias Prema …Petitioner Versus Nand Lal and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner for the amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order, this Court does not finds any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 3. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code demonstrates that in Para-8 thereof, it is mentioned that after the dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code the defendant had forcibly occupied the suit land during the pendency of the suit after the injunction order and constructed the RCC wall and septic tank and, thus, the plaintiff was entitled for the vacant possession of the said portion of the land. In this backdrop the amendment was prayed for. 4. In the application, it is nowhere mentioned therein when the defendants purportedly forcibly occupied the suit land and when was the RCC wall constructed of the septic tank constructed. It is also not mentioned therein that in case there indeed was an injunction order and defendants violated the injunction order, then what steps were taken by the petitioner thereafter against the defendants for alleged violation of the interim order. 3 5. In this backdrop, if one peruses the order passed by the learned Trial Court one finds that in the suit, issues were framed on 19.03.2019 and thereafter, despite opportunities granted to the petitioner-plaintiff no evidence was led by the petitioner. 6. Firstly an application was filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC for the appointment of the Local Commissioner on 16.03.2021, which was dismissed on 31.08.2021 and thereafter, after availing two opportunities for examining the witnesses, no witness was examined and rather the application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for the amendment of the plaint. This, application not only is conspicuously silent about material facts but all is not demonstrative of due diligence. The same was apparently filed to gain time as plaintiff was yet not intending to lead evidence. 7. Therefore, as has also been observed by the learned Trial Court, as it is evident that the filing of this application was nothing but an abuse of the process as the intent of the petitioner was but to delay the proceedings and in this backdrop, as this Court does not finds any perversity with the impugned order, the 4 petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 11, 2025 (Vinod)