IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.432/2025 Date of Decision: 30th July, 2025. Shivalik International Convent School .....Petitioner Versus Tikka Brijendra & Others. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to order dated 18.06.2025, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, HP in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.892 of 2024, whereby an application filed before the First Appellate Court seeking amendment in the written statement before the learned trial Court has been rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and impugned order. 3. The suit, in the case at hand, was filed on 24.06.2008. The suit was filed by the present respondent No.1. In the suit, respondent No.1 had laid a challenge to the General Power of Attorney executed by his father late Sh. Raja Harmohinder Singh in favour of one Sh. Ajay Singh i.e. predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.2 to 5. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 4. Other than the aforesaid, a challenge was also laid to the lease deed made by late Sh. Ajay Singh, based on a General Power of Attorney, granted by the father of respondent No.1, in favour of present petitioner. The suit so filed was decreed in favour of respondent No.1 on 28.12.2013. Both the General Power of Attorney and the lease deed made in pursuance thereto were held to be null and void and not binding upon the present respondent No.1. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied of the same, an appeal was preferred. During the pendency of the present appeal, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the present petitioner. The same is appended along with present petition as Annexure P-5. In the application filed for amendment, it has been averred that the father of present respondent No.1 i.e. late Sh. Raja Harmohinder Singh had died in the year 2000. Prior to the death, he had executed a Will in favour of Sh. Ajay Singh, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.2 to 5. Other than the aforesaid, it was averred that the property, in the case at hand, was the self-acquired property of late Sh. Raja Harmohinder Singh father of the present respondent No.1. Besides the aforesaid, it was averred that qua the inheritance of late Sh. Raja Harmohinder 3 Singh father of the present respondent No.1, there is an ongoing litigation. 6. In response of the aforesaid averments, the present respondent No.1 had categorically stated that insofar as late Sh. Ajay Singh is concerned, it has been held by the Court of competent jurisdiction that he was not the son of late Sh. Raja Harmohinder Singh, a finding which is stated to be have attained finality till the Apex Court. Hence, late Sh. Ajay Singh or his successors-in-interest, respondents No.2 to 5, have not acquired any right qua the property in the case at hand. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, it would be appropriate to refer to the written statement filed by the present petitioner in the trial Court. In this regard, it would be appropriate to reproduce preliminary objection No.5, raised by the present petitioner in the written statement filed. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- “5. Matter regarding succession of Raja Harminder Singh has still not been finally decided, as appeal against the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, Shimla declaring plaintiff as succession of Raja Harminder Singh is pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The suit is thus pre-mature and deserves dismissal.” 8. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is clearly evident that insofar as the 4 present petitioner is concerned before the learned trial Court, he was aware of the dispute qua succession of the properties of late Sh. Raja Harmohinder Singh. In other words, he was always aware about the dispute being raised qua inheritance of the present respondent No.1. Despite being aware of the same before commencement of trial i.e. before framing of issues, the petitioner never considered it appropriate to move an application seeking amendment of his written statement. Rather to the contrary, the petitioner permitted the trial to continue without a demur. 9. Insofar as, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is concerned, with effect from 01.07.2002, a proviso has been incorporated therein, which precludes moving of an application for amendment after trial i.e. after framing of issues, 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 the trial. 10. In the case at hand, it is evident that the petitioner was aware about a dispute with respect to the inheritance of the present respondent No.1. In other words, the petitioner was always aware of the dispute qua succession of the properties of late Sh. Raja Harmohinder Singh. Despite being aware of the same, no effort was made before the trial Court to move an application for 5 amendment of the written statement. It is only at the stage of an appeal that the present application seeking amendment has been filed. Even otherwise, in the reply filed to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, respondent No.1, it has been stated that the issue with respect to inheritance of late Sh. Ajay Singh i.e. predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.2 to 5, qua late Sh. Raja Harmohinder Singh has been negatived right uptil the Apex Court. 11. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 12. Besides the aforesaid, in a supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and 6 Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 13. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated here-in- above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 30th July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)