IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.441 of 2024 Decided on 15th December 2025 Bakhtawar Singh and another …Petitioners Versus Smt. Charno …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Het Ram, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 29.06.2024, in terms whereof, an application filed by the defendants for the amendment of the written statement has been allowed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that during the pendency of the Civil Suit filed by the present petitioners, an application was filed by the defendants for the amendment of the written statement. This 2 application is on record as Annexure P-3. It was averred in the application that the suit was pending adjudication and defendants being aged and being from village background earlier at the time of filing of written statement could not explain their entire version to their counsel and when detailed discussion took place with the newly appointed counsel and entire facts were brought to the notice of the counsel the need arose for amending the written statement. On these pleas prayer was made for the amendment of the written statement. The proposed amendments are also culled out in the application. 3. The application was resisted by the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the written statement was filed in the month of December, 2022 after the Trial had commenced and two plaintiff witnesses stood examined. The application did not disclose valid and genuine reason as to why the alleged amendments were not incorporated in the written statement at the first instance. 4. In terms of the impugned order, the learned Trial 3 Court has dismissed the application by returning the following findings:- “Admittedly, the applicants have filed the present application for amendment of written statement after commencement of trial i.e. at the stage of PWs and even after, examination of two P.W's. Thus, the applicants have to satisfy the twin considerations as discussed above. It is fact that a plea of due diligence is antithetical to the plea of error or negligence. They cannot co-habit and one destroys the other. The submission of the applicants in their amendment application is that the applicant being old person and village background, at the time of filing of written statement to the suit, could not explain/ told the entire version to their counsel and now the details discussion carried out with their newly appointed counsel by the applicants and those actual facts are to be pleaded in the written statement by way of explanation of facts. Once such an admission was made on behalf of applicants, it is clear that there was negligence on their part. Since, there was want of due diligence at the time when the written statement was originally drafted and filed, if so facto, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC would kick in, and the amendment would be barred it is also averred in the application that the present amendment of the written statement is due to the subsequent development and discovering of new facts but save and except such averments in the application, the applicants have failed to point out even a single event which has arisen due to subsequent development of the suit or discovery of new facts. Though it is tried to be argued on behalf of the applicants that since the parameters for amending written statement different from ones for amending the plaint, present application be allowed. In this regard, I would like to point out that this court is not ignorant to the law that amendment 4 in the written statement should be liberally allowed and the parameters for allowing amendment written statement is different but considering the fact that the averments, made in the amendment application filed by the applicants do not meet the requirements of law, the present application cannot be allowed. Consequent upon the aforesaid discussion, the present application in dismissed. Be tagged with main case fie Matter be come up for PWs for 03.08.2024.” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order under challenge, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court. 6. The reasons spelled out in the application seeking amendment of the written statement cannot be said to be cogent reasons on the basis of which, amendment in the pleadings could have been allowed. 7. The contention of the applicants they being old rustic people, earlier were not able to explain the things to their counsel and with the engagement of new counsel and after having full discussion with him, they were advised to amend the written statement, are not cogent grounds, on which, written statement can be allowed to be amended. Pleadings can be allowed to be amended if the proposed amendments 5 are on the basis of developments, which took place subsequently or if a party can satisfy the Court that despite due diligence what was being proposed to be introduced by way of amendment could not be incorporated earlier in the pleadings. 8. Herein both these tests are not satisfied. It was not the case of the applicants that the proposed amendments were relatable to events which took place after the filing of the written statement.The application does not spells out as to why the proposed amendments could not be earlier incorporated in the original written statement, because, it does not speaks about any events which took place after the filing of the written statement. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is not a tool which can be used by a party to fill up the lacunas in the case and the purpose of this provision is to advance the cause of justice and not allow a party to carry out amendment in the pleadings just to fill up the shortcomings in the pleadings. The endavour of the petitioners herein was to fill up the lacunae. 9. In the light of the above observations, if one peruses the reasoning that has been assigned by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the application one finds no perversity 6 therein. Therefore, as this Court does not see any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 15, 2025 (Vinod)