IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.9 of 2022 Reserved on 26.08.2025 Decided on 30th August, 2025 Shri Sohnu (deceased) through legal his representatives …Petitioners Versus Shri Dula (deceased) through his legal representatives …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a) to 1(g). Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may be accepted and impugned order Annexure P-5 may be ordered to be set aside and consequently the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by petitioners may be ordered to be allowed with costs throughout.” 2 2. The learned Court below has dismissed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioners for the amendment of the written statement. 3. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Record demonstrates that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 for the amendment of the written statement was filed by the petitioners before the learned Appellate Court. Learned Trial Court in terms of judgment and decree dated 30.04.2019 had decreed the case of the plaintiffs by restraining the LRs of the defendants from causing any interference in the possession of the LRs of the plaintiffs over the suit land. LRs of the defendants were also directed to remove their illegal construction from the suit land. In terms of the application filed praying for amendment of the written statement, it was mentioned therein that the original defendant Sohnu was an aged person, who died due to asthama on 04.05.2012. He filed the written statement to the suit as late Sohnu was not in a position to 3 understand English, therefore, while preparing the written statement certain clerical/typing errors were committed by the counsel, who gave wrong description of the Khasra number etc. in the preliminary objections as well as the written statement and as this mistake could not be corrected despite due diligence, therefore, prayer was made for the amendment of the written statement by introducing therein the proposed amendments. It was further mentioned in the application that the amendments could not be incorporated before the commencement of the trial as the predecessor of the applicant Sohnu died on 20.08.2018 after recording his cross-examination on 07.06.2018 and during this period Sohnu was suffering from asthama and, therefore, he could not get the written statement amended. 5. The application was opposed by the non-applicants. 6. In terms of the impugned order, the application has been rejected by the learned Appellate Court by assigning the following reasons:- “The Ld. Counsel for the appellants has argued that deceased Sohanu who was old person and was not in a position to understand the English language. He has further contended that due to his illness he could not get the suit amended. He has further contended that the amendment will not change the 4 suit in any manner rather it will depict the original and factual position of the suit. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel respondents/plaintiffs has argued that the appellants has filed written statement on 10.06.2010 and the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been filed after about nine years when the hearing of the suit had already been commenced and the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 30.04.2019. From the bare perusal of the written statement along with affidavit, it is manifestly clear that Sohanu has admitted the contents of the accompanying written statement which was read over and explained to him in vernacular language which is admitted to be correct by him. From the perusal of the para No. 2 of the written statement the appellants have alleged that the grandson of the defendants are doing the renovation of old kachha house situated on Khasra No. 829 undere Khewat Khatauni No. 194/2020 which house is in quite ownership and possession of the defendants. As noticed above the appellants/defendants filed application on 12.06.2019 under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC praying that since Sohanu was suffering from Asthma hence he could not get the written statement amended and the present appellants were impleaded as defendants at the place of deceased. They too could not find this error in the written statement and only came to know when the judgment was passed. The deceased Sohanu was well aware of the facts pleaded in the written statement which have been written under his instructions and at his instance therefore the present application is not maintainable, hence dismissed. Application disposed of. It be tagged with the main file after completion.” 7. This Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It is a matter of record that the Civil Suit was filed in the year 2010 and in terms of the 5 documents appended with the present petition, the written statement was filed in the year 2010 itself. If there indeed was some clerical or typographical error in the written statement nothing prevented Sohnu the original defendant to move an application for the amendment thereof. However, he did not do so during his life time and it is only after his death that the application was filed by the applicants i.e., the legal representatives of deceased Sohnu seeking amendment of the written statement and that too before the Appellate Court. 8. Now, in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 on one hand, the date of death of Sohnu is mentioned as 04.05.2012 in Para-2 of the application, in para-7 thereof, it is mentioned that the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant died on 20.08.2018. 9. Be that as it may, the Civil Suit itself was decided by the learned Trial Court on 30.04.2019 and there is no explanation in the application as to why the application was not filed during the pendency of the Civil Suit itself. All this demonstrates that there was no due diligence exercised by the applicants in filing the application, because, it is not their case that the proposed 6 amendments were relatable to events which took place after the decision of the Civil Suit. Not only this, the original defendant during his life time, never filed any application for amendment of the written statement. This demonstrates that filing of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 was nothing but an attempt on the part of the applicants to re-write the written statement and change the defence all together which is not permissible in law, because, the successors-in-interest of the deceased defendant enter into the footsteps of the original defendant. 10. In fact, findings returned in Para-9 of the order passed by the learned Appellate Court could not be demonstrated to be perverse or not borne out from the record during the hearing of this petition. Therefore also, as the view taken by the learned Appellate Court is clearly borne out from the record, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 30, 2025 (Vinod)