IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.573/2025 Date of Decision: 26th September, 2025. Dev Raj .....Petitioner Versus Rajender Kumar and Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tamana, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended along with the present petition as well as the impugned order. 2. The petitioner, in the case at hand, is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court and he has filed a suit seeking the following relief. “Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction, interfering, changing nature, and occupying the suit land comprised in Khewat No.37, Khatoni No.38, Khasra No.189/141 land 0-10 bigha situated at village Ratt, Pr. And Teh. Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur, HP in any manner and in alternative, decree for vacant possession in case defendants succeed in raising construction or occupying any 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 part of the suit land during the pendency of the suit.” 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff. It is against the dismissal of the same, vide order dated 13.08.2025, that the present petition has been preferred. 4. From a perusal of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it is evident that documents Ex.PW-2/B and PW-2/J have been proved and placed on record by the present petitioner/plaintiff at the time of leading of evidence. Ex.PW2/J is a demarcation report and as per the petitioner/plaintiff Ex.PW2/B is a Tatima, which details a 4 biswa encroachment on the suit land by the present respondents. 5. From a perusal of the suit and the relief claimed therein, which has been detailed supra, it is evident that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in the alternative he has prayed for vacant possession, in case during the pendency of the lis before the learned trial Court, the respondents succeed in raising construction or occupying of the suit land. The alleged encroachment made by the respondents during the pendency of the suit is what is required to be got incorporated in the plaint, as detailed in 3 para 5 of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-4). 6. Keeping in view the relief claimed in the suit filed, in my considered opinion, amendment being sought is not necessitated. However, the reasons given in the impugned order rejecting the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P-9) are uncalled for. These uncalled for reasons in the impugned order shall not come in the way of the adjudication of the lis pending consideration before the learned trial Court. 7. In view of above terms, the present petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 26th September, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)