IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.607 of 2025 Decided on 14th October, 2025 Jagdish Ram (deceased) through his LRs …Petitioners Versus Balbir Singh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 09.12.2024, passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for the amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the order under challenge passed by the learned Trial Court calls for no interference for the following reasons:- 2 3. The Civil Suit is stated to have been filed in the year 2013 and the application for the amendment of the plaint was filed in the year 2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the reason which necessitated the amendment in the plaint, was that during the pendency of the Civil Suit, the defendants filed an application for amendment of the written statement which stood allowed and which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners changed the very nature of the suit. 4. This Court is of the considered view that as far as a suit is concerned, its nature can be changed in case any amendment is allowed in the plaint. It is not understood as to how an amendment allowed by the Trial Court in the written statement would change the nature of the suit. The suit remains as it was earlier filed and an amendment in the written statement can have no bearing as far as the foundation and genesis of the Civil Suit are concerned. Otherwise also, if according to the petitioners, the application filed for amendment of the written statement was wrongly allowed, the petitioners had a remedy against the same. 3 5. Further, a perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court demonstrates that learned Trial Court has assigned the following reasons while dismissing the application:- “The plaintiff has filed a suit for vacant possession against the defendants. But during the pendency of the suit the defendants had purchased land in the suit land. It is admitted by the applicant plaintiff that after purchasing the land the defendants have become co-sharers and the suit against them in the present form is not maintainable. By way of the present application for amendments the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of joint possession. If the present application is admitted it will change the entire nature of the suit land. On the other hand, if the present application is admitted no effective or proper order can be passed in favour of the parties in the suit land. Now the question is not of illegal possession but of wrong entry in the name of the defendants/respondents. The applicant/plaintiff has the remedy to rectify the defects caused by the defendants becoming co- sharers in the suit land. But those defects cannot be rectified by way of amendments. These amendments are not necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute. Therefore, the application is dismissed. The observations made hereinabove, shall have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the suit, as the same have been made strictly only for the purpose to dispose of the present application. Application stands disposed of. It be tagged with main case file after its due completion.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that the reasoning given in the impugned order by the learned Trial Court is perverse and not borne out from the 4 record of the case. Obviously, the provision of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC which allows a party to amend the pleadings is there for the furtherance of the cause of justice and not to allow a party to fill up the lacunas in its case. Otherwise also, the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court on 09.12.2024 and the petitioners have filed this petition before this Court on 07.10.2025, i.e., after more than 10 months. There is no explanation given in the present petition as to why the impugned order has been assailed belatedly. 7. On all these counts, as this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 14, 2025 (Vinod)