2025:HHC:38078 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 382 of 2025 Decided on: 12.11.2025 ____________________________________________________ Electronics India ……….. Petitioner Versus M/S Kornark Products ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.04.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint, by the present respondent/plaintiff has been allowed. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and documents appended along with. 3. The suit filed by the respondent is appended along with the present petition as Annexure-P2. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the same has been filed, seeking a relief 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of mandatory injunction. From the averments in the plaint, it is evident that material was being supplied by the present petitioner/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff for further supplies to be made to the respective buyers of the respondent/plaintiff. In the plaint, it is alleged that the material so supplied by the petitioner/defendant was defective and on account of the same, the respondent/plaintiff had requested the petitioner/defendant to take back the defective material so supplied. It is further averred in the plaint that the petitioner/defendant had categorically stated that if the defective material is sent back, then the same shall not be received. Since the same had not been lifted from the premises of the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, the present suit for mandatory injunction had been filed. 4. In the suit so filed, the value of the defective material has been valued at Rs. 1.15 crore. Specifically, the same has been mentioned in para Nos. 6 and 7 of the plaint. Other than the aforesaid, in the relief clause of the plaint, it had been prayed that the petitioner/defendant be directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to lift the defective/useless material from the premises of the respondent/plaintiff “against payment of money”. 5. A detailed written statement has been filed. Copy of the same is appended along with as Annexure-P3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the 3 attention of this Court to para No. 15 of the written statement. The same is reproduced as follows:- “It is submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit without considering the jurisdiction. This Hon’ble Court does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.” 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the present respondent/plaintiff. The same is appended along with present petition as Annexure-P5. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the respondent/plaintiff by moving this application sought deletion of the amount of Rs. 1.15 crore, as mentioned in para Nos. 6 and 7 of the plaint. Other than the aforesaid, from the relief clause, the expression “against payment of money”, was sought to be removed. 7. In the reply filed to the application, the main contention raised is that the subject matter of dispute in the case at hand is the defective material, which has been valued Rs. 1.15 crores and as a result thereof, the suit on account of pecuniary jurisdiction would not be triable by the Court of Civil Judge, Nahan. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned Court below after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the proceedings in the case at hand are at initial stage and the amendment sought will neither change the cause of action, nor 4 the nature of the suit and therefore, allowed the present application. 9. The suit in the case at hand has been filed, seeking a mandatory injunction. The mandatory injunction being sought is on account of the defective material having been supplied by the present petitioner/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff. Despite making requests for removal of the defective material from the premises of the respondent/plaintiff, the same was not removed by the petitioner/defendant. It is further averred in the plaint that the petitioner/defendant had categorically stated that if the defective material is sent back, then the same shall not be received. Hence, the suit in the case at hand, seeking a mandatory injunction for removal of the same had been filed by the present respondent/plaintiff. 10. In a case of this type, the value of the goods sought to be made in the plaint, is of no consequence. The objection raised with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction or the trial Court, raised in the written statement, hence is meaningless. On allowing of the amendments being sought, i.e., whereby the value of the useless/defective material as has been made in para Nos. 6 and 7 of the plaint shall be deleted, neither the cause of action, nor the nature of the suit shall change. 5 11. From a perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the petitioner/defendant used to supply goods, i.e., Metal Core Printed Circuit Boards to the respondent/plaintiff. The same were further supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to its customers M/S Bajaj Electrical Limited. The payment for the material supplied in the case at hand, qua which the suit had been filed, is yet to be settled as is evident from para No. 6 of the plaint. 12. In the aforesaid backdrop, the expression “against payment for money”, as contained in the relief clause is a surplusage, which was sought to be removed by moving an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Even otherwise, the petitioner/defendant cannot be expected to pay money for his own-goods. On account of deletion so sought, neither nature of the suit is being changed, nor a valid defence available to the petitioner/defendant is being made redundant. In view thereof, I see no reason to interfere with the present order. 13. In view of above terms, present petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 24.11.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge November 12th, 2025 Susheel