IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 95 of 2024 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 Sahiboo Devi .....Petitioner. Versus Anand Kishore (Deceased) through LRs and Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 26.03.2024, passed by the learned Senor Civil Judge(I), Shimla, HP in Civil Suit No.96-1 of 2010/2008 in CMA No.794/2023, whereby an application filed seeking amendment of the plaint by the present petitioner/plaintiff before the learned trial Court has been rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. 3. The suit in the case at hand was filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff on 19.04.2008. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed on 17.11.2011. One of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 issues framed, which is relevant for deciding the controversy at hand is issue No.3, which reads as under:- “3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration to the effect that plaintiffs have become owners in regards with the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPP” 4. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal, it transpired that original defendant No.1-Anand Kishore had died during the pendency of the suit. In view thereof, the judgment and decree were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court with direction to give an opportunity to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased original defendant No.1-Anand Kishore as per law and thereafter parties were to be heard and matter to be decided afresh. The aforesaid order in appeal was passed on 09.03.2021. 5. Subsequent to the remand, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed by the present petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint filed. By virtue of the amendment, plea of adverse possession was sought to be got incorporated. In this respect, it was pleaded that on 3 account of change of law, in terms of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur and Others in 2019, now adverse possession could be used as a sword and not just as a shield, hence, the amendment was sought. 6. The amendment was objected, it was categorically stated that one of the issues framed in the suit on 17.11.2011, pertain to the plea of adverse possession. Post framing of issues, a protracted trial had taken place. Both the parties to the lis had led evidence and finally a quietus to the entire issue was given by the learned trial Court by passing an appropriate judgment on 29.05.2019. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned trial Court was of the view that based on pleadings on 17.11.2011, an issue with respect to adverse possession had been framed and onus to prove was placed on the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, there was no need to allow the amendment now being sought. 8. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be 4 permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso. The petitioner/plaintiff has failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 9. The petitioner/plaintiff did not choose to take steps to get the plaint amended suitably and instead allowed the suit to go on and examined the witnesses on his behalf and cross-examined the witnesses produced by the defendants. Only during the stage of arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff came up with an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the pleadings. Hence, even on merits, the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 10. The learned trial Court has correctly rejected the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, therefore, I see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned 5 trial Court and the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 07.01.2026. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 17th December, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)