2025:HHC:35513 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.731/2024 Date of Decision: 27th October, 2025. Ravinder Kumar Gupta .....Petitioner Versus Devinder Kumar Sharma. ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. K.R. Thakur, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 11.01.2022, passed by the Court of Civil Judge-III, Shimla, HP in CMA No.980/2020, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 3. Pleas sought to be raised are legal in nature. The same is evident from paragraph 3 of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The first principle of pleadings is that they should state only facts and not law. It is the duty of the parties to state only facts on which they rely for their claim or defence. It is for the Court to apply the law on the facts pleaded. The trial Court in this respect has correctly placed reliance upon AIR 1952 SC 47, titled Kedar Lal Vs. Hari Lal. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:35513 4. Admittedly, in the case at hand, amendment is being sought to be made after the framing of issues. In the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it has been pleaded that despite due diligence pleas now sought to be raised could not have been raised earlier. 5. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term “due diligence” is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial. The term “due diligence” determines the scope of a party’s constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit. In this respect, a reference can be made to (2012) 2 SCC 300 titled as J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others. 6. In this respect, suffice it to state that an Advocate representing a party must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. In fact, had the person, who prepared the plaint, signed and verified the plaint, shown some attention, pleas now sought to have been raised, could have been noticed and 3 2025:HHC:35513 rectified there itself. In such circumstances, it cannot be construed that due diligence was adhered to in the case at hand. 7. The application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the present petitioner/plaintiff is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-1. From a perusal of para 7 of the same, it is evident that the plea sought to be raised is one under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act i.e. preferential right of pre-emption whereby if any interest in immovable property has devolved upon two or more heirs specified in Clause-1 of the Schedule and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property, then the other heir shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred. 8. It is undisputed that the Sale Deed was executed on 20.11.2006. The application for amendment was filed on 01.10.2020, after the lapse of more than 14 years. Article 97 of the Limitation Act, provides one year for filing the suit to claim a preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act; hence, the suit for claiming the preferential right would have been barred on the date of filing the application. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless by the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. In the present case, the amendment is barred by limitation and cannot be 4 2025:HHC:35513 allowed. (See 2024 (3) Shim. LC 1571, titled Vijay Kumar Vs. Rattan Lal and Anr.) 9. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 20.11.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 27th October, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)