2025:HHC:37809 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.551 of 2025 Decided on: 11.11.2025 Virender Singh @ Sunny & others … Petitioners Versus Shareshta Devi & Sunita Devi & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashil Bhushan, Advocat, for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 could not be served. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Respondent No.1 not served. To ascertain as to whether the case has any merit or not, the matter was heard. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. 3. The reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application reads as under:- “16. The cause of action against the defendants in the present suit arose on 05.02.2010/11.03.2010. The 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:37809 cause of action against the defendants in Suit No. 79/2014 arose in the first week of March 2014, the cause of action in Succession Act Petition No. 3/11 was different. The order which the plaintiff/respondent had against Bhagwan Singh in Suit No. 79/2014 was decided in his favour. But that judgment and decree is not binding on the rights of the parties in the present suit, because that judgment is binding in nature against Bhagwan Singh and not against the present respondents/applicants. As far as the petition under the Succession Act is concerned, its nature and relief is different because the applicant has claimed relief not against the present respondents but against different persons. If the present application is admitted then it will change the nature of the suit and the hearing will start afresh after 15 years. The applicant also failed to prove why they did not move the present application in time. The applicants also failed to mention when they came to know about the facts. But the pleadings of the application show that the applicants have been aware of these facts since 2013 but they did not move the application. Of course the time limit was not written in the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. But it did not mean that the applicant can amend their pleading whenever he wants. Merely mentioning that despite due diligence the present application could not be moved before the start of the hearing is not enough. Now through the present application the applicant wants to set up a new defence 3 2025:HHC:37809 in the present suit which cannot be allowed. Merely exhibiting documents did not allow the applicants/defendants to amend their pleadings. It is established law that evidence produced in the court beyond the pleadings cannot be admitted or considered. It is fairly settled law that amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 is to be allowed if such an amendment is required for proper and effective adjudication of controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings, subject to certain conditions such as allowing the amendment should not result in injustice to the other side. 17. In the aforesaid backdrop of the statutory provision (Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17), when the application filed by applicant seeking amendment of the written statement is perused, it is evident that there is not even a whisper in the application with respect to the exercise of due diligence on the part of the applicant despite which, proposed amendment could not be incorporated at before the commencement of trial and such amendment amount to the change the nature of the suit. 18.The provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not provide an absolute right to either of the parties to amend pleadings at any stage of the suit. This Court is of the view that the proposed amendment is not necessary in the present suit. The material available on record is sufficient to decide the 4 2025:HHC:37809 disputed issue. After considering the entire facts and law as discussed above this court finds that the application is not maintainable, hence dismissed. Application stands disposed of. It be registered and tagged with main case file. Be listed for Arguments 10.07.2035.” 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the same calls for no interference. 5. The application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement was made available by the learned Court for the perusal of the Court and perusal thereof demonstrates that the petitioners were seeking the amendment on the ground that there was decree dated 19.03.2014 and in light of that decree the subsequent suit was hit by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. In fact, there is not even a murmur in the application as to why the amendment was being sought after ten years as from the date of passing of the decree and this clearly demonstrates that no due- diligence was exercised by the petitioners which is necessary when a party seeks amendment of pleadings. Learned Trial Court also held in its order that there was not even a whisper in the application with 5 2025:HHC:37809 respect to exercise of due-diligence and it also held that material available on record was sufficient to decide the dispute in issue. 6. In light of the findings so returned by learned Trial Court, as this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order under challenge, the present petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 11, 2025 (Rishi)