( 2025:HHC:554 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 150 of 2023. Decided on : 3 rd January, 2025. Bansi Lal ...Petitioner. Versus Bidhi Chand ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vaishali Lakhan Pal and Mr. P.K. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitesh Thakur, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). By way of instant petition, order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. IV, District Hamiurpur, H.P. in Civil Misc. Application No. 333/2020 has been assailed, whereby the application of the petitioner herein for amendment of written statement under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Petitioner herein is the defendant before the learned trial Court in Civil Suit Regd. No. 3156-2013. 3. The respondent-plaintiff has placed on record documents which reveal that the petitioner/defendant had filed two applications under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the trial Court for amendment of written Statement. 4. It is evident from the record that the petitioner/defendant had filed the first application on 20.07.2017 for adding a plea in the written statement to the effect that the levels of the houses of the parties were different and in fact the level of the house of the plaintiff was lower than the level of the house of the defendant. This application was withdrawn by the petitioner/defendant on 22.01.2020 without reserving any liberty to file an application for amendment on the same cause afresh. It is also evident that the petitioner/defendant in fact had already filed another application for amendment of written statement on 13.09.2019 when his first application for amendment was pending. Noticeably, the amendment sought both times was …2… ( 2025:HHC:554 ) identical, therefore, once the petitioner/defendant had withdrawn his earlier application for amendment without reserving any liberty to file fresh, second application could not have been filed. 5. The conduct of the petitioner is clearly lacking in bonafide. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is required in the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 3rd January, 2025. (jai) …3… ( 2025:HHC:554 )