2025:HHC:42523 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 218 of 2024 Decided on : 09.12.2025 Sh. Ravinder Singh, now through his LR’s and others …Petitioners Versus Surjit Singh, now through his LR’s and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : M/s Vandana Kumari and Rajani Kumari, Advocates. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challanged order dated 09.03.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge (II), Amb, District Una, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners herein, under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC), for amendment of the written statement, stands dismissed. 2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents, this 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:42523 Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 3. A perusal of the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC, praying for amendment of the written statement, demonstrates that the reasons spelled out therein as to why the applicants were praying for amendment of the written statement was that while filing the written statement, defendant No.1 had informed his counsel that he intended to raise construction on the meagre portion of the suit land in order to settle his family after his retirement. However, after the interim order was passed by the learned Trial Court, the applicant engaged another counsel, who advised that what was not mentioned in the written statement, could not be raised in Appeal. He accordingly advised them to amend the written statement. On this plea, amendment of the written statement was prayed for. 4. This Court is of the considered view that this is no ground in law for amendment of the written statement. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court demonstrates that this is exactly what has been held while 3 2025:HHC:42523 dismissing the application. When the written statement was filed initially by the petitioners to the plaint, obviously, the same was filed by the learned counsel on the instructions imparted by the present petitioners. The contention of the petitioners that after the petitioners changed the counsel, on his advise, the petitioners filed the application for amendment of the written statement, cannot be a cogent reason to allow the amendment of the written statement because pleadings are filed on the basis of instructions imparted by the parties to the counsel and not vice versa. Otherwise also, Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC is not to be used as a tool to improve the shortcomings in the pleadings. 5. Therefore, in light of the above observations, as this Court finds no infirmity in impugned order dated 09.03.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge (II), Amb, District Una, H.P., this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 09, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)