1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.73 of 2012 Date of Decision : 22.12.2025 Madan Lal and others …… Petitioners Versus Kalawati ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Ms Richa Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms Dhanwanti, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 26.02.2022, passed by Civil Judge, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment of the plaint has been allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and the documents appended along-with present petition. 3. The application seeking amendment is Annexure P-3. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the same was filed on 10.11.2017. From the copy of order-sheets placed on record, it is evident that on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 27.10.2017, prior to the filing of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present respondent/plaintiff, the right of the respondent/plaintiff to lead evidence was closed and the matter was listed for recording of evidence of the present petitioners/defendants. 4. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, post amendment contains a proviso. In terms of the proviso, once the trial is commenced, i.e., after framing of issue, amendment in the pleadings can only be allowed if the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial (before framing of issues). From a perusal of the application filed seeking amendment, nothing has been averred to show that despite due diligence, the respondent/plaintiff could not have raised the amendments now being sought before commencement of the trial, in the case at hand. 5. In this regard, the Trial Court while allowing the amendment has failed to exercise jurisdiction as in the impugned order it has failed to consider this aspect and then conclude that inspite of due diligence the respondent/plaintiff could not have raised amendment before commencement of the trial. 6. In the response filed to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioners/defendants, detailed averments have been made to show that the amendments now being sought have been a subject matter of controversy inter se the parties in previous litigation and have been conclusively decided. In this 3 respect, attention of this Court has been invited to a previous suit bearing Civil Suit No.199/1 of 2001/99 filed by the present respondent/plaintiff seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against one Surmi decided by the Trial Court on 30.08.2001. The appeal there against was decided on 29.04.2003 and the Regular Second Appeal No.319 of 2003 was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.10.2014. 7. The following narration of facts made in RSA No.319 of 2003 decided on 16.10.2014 are relevant. The relevant extract of the same reads as under:- “3. The land in question originally belonged to Bishan Singh, under whom Ram Diya was the tenant. Bishan Singh expired in the year 1973 leaving behind his LRs Surmi (wife) and Harish Chander (son). By virtue of provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and other revenue/land laws, Ram Diya became owner with respect to the share owned by Harish Chander. Surmi being widow her interest in the land stood statutorily protected thus did not vest in Ram Diya and, as such, she continued to be owner with respect to her share. Thus, Ram Diya was both owner and tenant of Surmi in the suit land. With the death of Ram Diya, his daughter Kalawati being the sole surviving successor inherited his estate. Though rights of ownership in the suit land stood vested in her, but on account of statutory presumption rights of tenancy devolved upon brothers of Ram Diya namely Balak Ram, Dayala and Kewal Ram, male legal surviving descendants and heirs of Ram Diya. With respect to such rights, Surmi filed a suit in which these persons entered into a compromise. In terms of judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Solan, District Solan, H.P in Civil Suit No.141/1 of 1998, titled as Smt. Surmi Devi Versus Balkia & others, Balak Ram, Dayala and Kewal Ram became owners of 1/4th share in the suit land and Surmi continued to remain owner of remaining 1/4th share. Accordingly, revenue record 4 was corrected and entries of ownership and possession reflected therein. Revenue record i.e. jamabandis pertaining to the years 1982-83 and 1987-88 evidences such fact.” 8. Other than the aforesaid, findings returned in the aforesaid judgment detailed here-in-below are also relevant for deciding the present petition. The same reads as follows:- “8. Section 45 of the Act, governing the parties, disentitles the plaintiff, for not being a male lineal descendant, from inheriting tenancy rights, which by operation of law devolved upon Balak Ram, Dayala and Kewal Ram, being real brothers of Ram Diya. Being male lineal descendant, having right to inherit the property is not disputed by the plaintiff. Courts below concurrently have held the plaintiff not to be in exclusive possession of the suit land As such, her prayer for grant of injunction rightly stands rejected being unsustainable In law and facts. Courts below concurrently have held the order passed by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade to be null and void, inter alia, passed without compliance of principle of natural justice. Thus, there is no error in such findings. Significantly appeal was not admitted on these questions.” 9. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, it is evident that the present application filed seeking amendment of the plaint is nothing but a ploy to delay the adjudication of the lis pending consideration before the Trial Court. The pleadings sought to be now got incorporated have conclusively been adjudicated in the previous litigation initiated in the year 1996 and decided by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in 2001 and 2003 respectively. The present suit has been filed thereafter. 5 10. In view of the aforesaid, present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.02.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, is quashed and set aside. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 09.01.2026. (Bipin Chander Negi) December 22, 2025 (KS) Judge