2025:UHC:4345 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1503 of 2025 23 May, 2025 Shri Deepak Kumar Negi --Petitioner Versus Shri Hoshiyar Singh Negi --Respondent With Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1509 of 2025 Shri Deepak Kumar Negi --Petitioner Versus Shri Anirudh Bhati and another --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1503 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed. 2. Petitioner sought leave to amend his written statement by making an application under Order 6 Rule 1 2025:UHC:4345 17 CPC. His application was rejected by learned Trial Court, vide order dated 26.10.2024. Petitioner, thereafter filed revision under Section 115 CPC. His revision was also dismissed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Dehradun, vide judgment dated 26.03.2025. Petitioner has challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 26.10.2024 and judgment rendered by Revisional Court on 26.03.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment and orders. From perusal of record, it is revealed that originally, relief of permanent injunction was sought by the plaintiff (respondent herein) and the suit was filed on 12.07.2019; soon after filing of the suit, plaintiff sought leave to amend for adding the relief of mandatory injunction and his amendment application was allowed by Trial Court, vide order dated 11.02.2021. 4. It transpires that petitioner filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was dismissed by learned Trial Court, vide order dated order dated 04.09.2021, and subsequently on 04.10.2021, petitioner filed written statement to the unamended plaint and he did not respond to the pleadings added through amendment in the plaint. 2 2025:UHC:4345 Issues were framed, as per the pleadings of the parties and thereafter both the parties led evidence and now suit is fixed for final hearing. At this belated stage, petitioner sought leave to amend his written statement for giving reply to the pleadings, which were added in the plaint through amendment. 5. Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for amendment made by petitioner. Learned Revisional Court affirmed the order passed by Trial Court. 6. I have gone through the impugned order passed by Trial Court as affirmed by Revisional Court. Learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer made by petitioner seeking leave to amend his written statement. Petitioner contested the suit without giving reply to the pleadings added in the plaint through amendment in February, 2021, therefore, after closer of evidence when matter was fixed for final hearing, the prayer of the petitioner could not have been allowed. Learned Trial Court rightly held that it is a dilatory tactics adopted by petitioner, who wants to linger on the matter for obvious reasons. Learned Revisional Court has given valid reasons for dismissing the revision petition filed by petitioner. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ordains that application for amendment 3 2025:UHC:4345 shall not be allowed after commencement of trial, 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. 7. In the present case, the conduct of the petitioner reveals that he was not diligent. He filed written statement to the unamended plaint on 04.10.2021, although, the plaint was amended much earlier pursuant to order dated 11.02.2021. Petitioner contested the suit without seeking leave to amend his written statement, before framing of issues or even when the witnesses were being examined. Thus, the prayer made by petitioner, for amending the written statement could not have been granted at the stage of final hearing. No party can be permitted to play with judicial proceedings and dilatory tactics adopted by a party should not be encouraged. 8. Thus, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Navin 4