IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 7 of 2025 Decided on: 14.01.2025 ____________________________________________________ Savitru ……….. petitioner Versus Yuv Raj and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge District Kullu H.P. in Civil Suit No. 179 of 2014 titled as Yuv Raj vs. Savitru and others, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the present petitioner/defendant No.1 before the trial Court stands rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended alongwith the present petition. 3. Issues in the case at hand were framed before the trial Court on 08.12.2015, meaning thereby the trial in the case at hand before the trial Court commenced w.e.f. 08.12.2015. The application seeking amendment of the written statement by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner/defendant No.1 was filed on 21.10.2024. The same was filed, when the matter was listed for final arguments before the trial Court. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce Order 6 Rule 17 CPC:- “the court may at any stage of the proceedings allowed either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manners and on such terms as may be just and all such amendment shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 4. A bare perusal of the aforesaid section makes it clear that an application for amendment can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. The amendment sought to be made should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 5. However, the proviso to the said provision provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial Court has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. 6. In this respect, reference can be made to a Civil Miscellaneous petition main (original No. 356 of 2022) titled as Sarbjit Singh vs. Harbhajan Kaur, relevant extract whereof reads as under:- 3 “12. This Court is of the considered view that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code as they stand today, though do not confer the power to a Court at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, but, before this power so vested in the Court is exercised by it, it has to test as to whether the party seeking such amendment, despite ‘due diligence’ could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial which was now being intended to be incorporated by way of amendment. 7. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop of the statutory provision (Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17), when the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking amendment of the written statement/plaint 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 petitioner/defendant No.1 despite which, proposed amendment could not be incorporated at the stage when the written statement was filed. 8. To the contrary in the application, it has been mentioned that the plea now sought to be taken, could not be raised on account of mistake, inadvertence on the part of petitioner/defendant No.1. The foundation of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 by the petitioner/defendant No.1 before the trial Court is “inadvertence” and “mistake”. The same being antithetical to “due diligence”. Since the petitioner/defendant No.1 has not been able to show an exercise of due diligence, therefore, 4 the Court would not undertake the exercise as to whether the proposed amendment is required to be allowed or not. 9. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: “(i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v.Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can 5 possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 10. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. 11. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (Bipin Chander Negi) Vacation Judge January 14, 2025 tarun