2025:HHC:44224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 630 of 2025 Decided on: 17.12.2025 ____________________________________________________ Shishu Pal Rajta ……….. petitioner Versus Shiv Ram Rajta and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Ravinder Singh. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.6.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chopal, District Shimla (Circuit Court at Theog) in case CMA No. 152 of 2023 in Civil Suit No. 98 of 2022 titled as Shishu Pal Rajta vs. Shiv Pal Rajta and others, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint by the present petitioner/plaintiff. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended alongwith the present petition. 3. The petitioner had filed a suit against the respondents seeking permanent prohibitory injunction and a 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 mandatory injunction. The latter was being sought w.r.t. a bathroom & toilet raised on a common path by the respondent/defendant. 4. Pleadings have yet to be completed. Replication is yet to be filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff. The public path over which it is alleged that the bathroom & toilet stands built exist on Khasra No. 15, which is in the ownership of the State Government. 5. The amendment sought in the suit has been reproduced in the impugned order. From a perusal of the amendment sought, it is evident that a permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction are being sought against the present respondents with respect to alleged infraction being made i.e. digging of road, tying of dog thereupon & infractions already made i.e. building of bathroom, toilet thereupon by them (respondents) over Khasra No.15 (public path) alleged to be belonging to the State Government. 6. Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") makes it clear that every pleading shall contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 makes it clear that every pleading shall be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation 3 being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph. Sub-rule (3) b of Rule 2 mandates that dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words. 7. The necessary averments, both in form and foundation, have already been laid in the original plaint. By way of the proposed amendment, the petitioner/plaintiff seeks to place on record the fact that the public path, over which obstruction is alleged to have been caused by the present respondent/defendant, is owned by the State Government. In my considered view, the petitioner/plaintiff is neither altering the cause of action nor causing any prejudice whatsoever to the respondent/defendant. 8. Insofar as the plea of the State not being impleaded as a party in the case at hand is concerned, suffice it to state that the State, in the present case, is not a necessary party, as none of the parties to the lis are claiming any right against the owner of Khasra No. 15. The resistance to the use of the passage is not coming from the owner thereof, rather, the same is coming from the present respondent/defendant. Hence, even on this account, the owner would not be required to be impleaded as a party. In this regard, reference can be made to Madan Mohan Chahravrty vs. Shashi Bhusan Mukerji MANU/WB/0151/1913:19 C.W.N 1211. In that case the same question arose, namely, whether a suit brought by a plaintiff for a declaration of a right of way, for 4 restoration of the path to its former condition and for a perpetual injunction ought to fail on the ground that the owners of all the servient tenements over which the way was claimed had not been made parties to the suit. Mr. Justice N.R. Chatterjee held that the suit ought not to fail on that account; and that view was accepted without question on appeal by Jenkins, C.J. and D. Chatearjee, J. This view was subsequently adopted in Appeal from Appellate decree No. 1690 of 1919 Raja Raj Narayan Chandra Dhurja vs. Beni Madhab Ternary decided on the 20th December, 1921. 9. In a more a less similar case, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the decision reported in Girish Chandra vs. Nagendranath AIR 1978 Orl 21; has held that the owner of land is not a necessary party to the suit so long as none of the parties to the suit have claimed any right specifically against the owner. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and impugned order dated 12.6.2024 passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside. Amendment as is being sought is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 17th December, 2025 tarun