IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.723/2024 Date of Decision: 19th August, 2025. Jawahar Lal .....Petitioner Versus Vinet Sood and Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tejasvi Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 30.11.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, HP in Civil Misc. Application No.1120 of 2022, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the present respondents seeking amendment of plaint has been allowed by the learned trial Court. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended along with the present petition as well as the impugned order. 3. The respondents herein had filed a suit against one Sh. Girish Thakur i.e. proforma respondent No.3, seeking the following relief:- “I. The defendant himself through his agents, servants, and attorney or successor-in- interest be restrained permanently through a decree of prohibitory injunction from 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 interfering and blocking the path denoted as E, V, IV and Z on the site plan and also from interfering, dismantling the joint sewerage and water connection, comprised in Khasra No.643 of Khata Khatauni No.8/11 entered in jamabandi for the year 2006-07 of Phati Dhalpur Kothi Maharaja Tehsil and District Kullu, HP as this the only path used by the plaintiffs to approach their house from time of construction of their houses in any manner till the final disposal of the suit, and; II. In the alternative suit for mandatory injunction in case the defendant succeeds in dismantling the suit path or raising any sort of construction over the suit path, the defendant may kindly be ordered to bring the suit path in its original petition at his costs and expense, and; III. A decree for any other relief to which the plaintiff be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with cost of the suit, in the interest of justice.” 3. During the pendency of the suit so filed by the present respondents No.1 and 2, the present petitioner had purchased a house from the original defendant i.e. present proforma respondent No.3. On account of the said purchase so made by the present petitioner, he got himself impleaded as a defendant before the learned trial Court. The same was done vide Court’s order dated 25.05.2019. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the present respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs before the learned trial Court on account of the alleged illegal 3 construction being raised by the present petitioner/defendant No.2, moved an application for amendment of the suit so filed by the present respondents/plaintiffs. On account of the amendment so sought the following reliefs were claimed:- “IIA. That the defendants through their agents, servant, attorney or successor-in-interest be restrained from interfering and blocking the light, airway which right of easement has been mature in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by passage of time, by illegal construction without any approval from Town and Country Planning or MC Kulu, without leaving any set back on the new construction in contravention of law and rules of construction as envisaged under TCP and MC Act over land comprise in Khasra No.643, of Khata Khatauni No.9/11 entered in the jamabandi for the year 2016-17 of phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu, HP and declaration to the effect that easmentary right of air and light has been matured in favour of plaintiff. AND suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants for demolition of illegal construction raised one and half storey existing house in contravention of TCP Act and MC Act that too in complete defiance of status quo orders passed by this learned Court. IIIA. And further in case the respondents/defendants succeed in raising the construction illegally during the pendency of the suit thereby blocking air and light towards the house of applicants/plaintiffs the defendants/respondents may kindly be ordered to bring the construction to its original position as it stood at the time of filing the case.” 5. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is evident that initially the suit filed wherein the present petitioner was not a party way back in July 2016, only pertained to blocking of path leading to the house of the present respondents/plaintiffs comprised in 4 Khasra No.643. Subsequent to the purchase made by the present petitioner from the original defendant No.1/proforma respondent No.3 herein, the present petitioner stepped into the shoes of the defendant No.1/proforma respondent No.3. 6. Thereafter, on account of alleged illegal construction sought to be made by the present petitioner, the present respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs before the learned trial Court sought an amendment to the suit restraining the present petitioner/defendant No.2 before the trial Court, from raising construction over Khasra No.643, thereby interfering in the easmentary right of light and air of the present respondents/plaintiffs. 7. The trial Court in the aforesaid backdrop, was of the view that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties, it would be appropriate, if the amendment as sought by the present respondents/plaintiffs before the learned trial Court is allowed. Further the trial Court allowed the amendment sought, as it was of the view that the proceedings are still in the nascent stage, as issues are yet to be framed inter se the parties. 8. In my considered view and in the scenario in the case at hand, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should ordinarily be allowed as it helps in adjudicating the 5 matter inter se the parties and the same also helps in avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Other than the aforesaid, allowing the amendment, in the case at hand, does not result injustice to either side. Even otherwise, issues in the case at hand have yet to be framed. The amendment sought is not mala fide and does not change the nature of the suit, as a consequence whereof the present petitioner does not lose any valid defence and no time barred claim is sought to be raised, in the case at hand. 9. Besides the aforesaid, 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. 10. Moreover 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. & 6 another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 11. 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. 12. In view of above terms, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order, therefore, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27.08.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th August, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)