CM(M) no. 80.2023 Page 1 of 4 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on : 05.082025. Pronounced on 21.08.2025. CM(M) 80/2023 Ghulam Mohammad Wani …. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Aftab Ahmad, Advocate V/s Abdul Aziz Hajam ....Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T.A. Lone, Advocate CORAM: Hon’ble Ms Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, Judge JUDGMENT 1. By this petition filed in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 24.03.2023, hereinafter for short to be referred as impugned order” passed by the learned Munsiff, Kupwara “for short Trial Court”, in a civil suit titled “Abdul Aziz Hajam v. Ghulam Mohammad Wani” whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant therein seeking amendment of his written statement, has been dismissed. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that a civil suit for eviction titled “Abdul Aziz Hajam v. Ghulam Mohammad Wani” had been filed by respondent/plaintiff before the Trial court in the month of September, 2012, seeking eviction of the petitioner/defendant from a shop measuring 6x10 situated at Dargali, Kupwara, on the grounds contained therein. CM(M) no. 80.2023 Page 2 of 4 3. The petitioner/defendant, pursuant to a notice for appearance, appeared and resisted the claim of the respondent/plaintiff by filing written statement before the trial court on 07.11.2015. However, subsequently, the petitioner/defendant felt a need to amend the written statement when the issues in the suit had been framed and the parties had been directed to lead evidence. The petitioner/defendant, subsequently, filed an application on 30.09.2021, seeking amendment of his written statement. The Trial court, upon consideration, dismissed the application for amendment of written statement in terms of the impugned order primarily on the ground that the petitioner/defendant has not been vigilant as he has chosen to file the application for amendment with delayed dispatch as the plaintiff/respondent has adduced his evidence also. 4. Aggrieved of the order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition inter-alia on the grounds that the impugned order is perverse, cryptic and in disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the law on the subject; the amendment would have advanced the cause of justice, therefore, the trial court erred in law by not allowing the amendment; the amendment sought for was necessary for the determination of the real questions of controversy. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It appears that the Trial court had, after filing of the written statement by the petitioner, framed issues and had kept the matter for adducing evidence inasmuch as the plaintiff/respondent had adduced evidence by way of an affidavit. The issues in the matter had been framed on 16.11.2019, the respondent-plaintiff had adduced his evidence by way CM(M) no. 80.2023 Page 3 of 4 of an affidavit on 28.12.2019 while as the application for amendment has been filed by the petitioner/defendant on 30.09.2021. The trial court has rightly taken note of the fact that the application for amendment of written statement has been filed by the petitioner/defendant one year and nine months later of the date the respondent adduced his evidence, therefore, cannot be allowed. 7. The petitioner, on his own showing had filed written statement on 07.11.2015 in the suit filed before the trial court in September, 2012, i.e., three years later the date of filing of the suit and the proceedings in the matter continued so much so that issues came to be framed in the matter as also the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded by the time the petitioner chose to file an application for amendment. 8. The trial court has rightly appreciated the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 and 18 of the CPC while dismissing the application for amendment filed by the petitioner/defendant. It would be profitable to reproduce Order 6 Rule 17 and 18 herein, thus: “17. Amendment of pleadings— The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions 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 inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 18. Failure to amend after order— If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as CM(M) no. 80.2023 Page 4 of 4 aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court.” 9. This Court does not find the impugned order to be legally untenable in any way, therefore, the same is upheld. Since this Court does not find the case, for interference, having been made out on merits, therefore, the maintainability aspect of the petition filed in terms of Article 227 has been left untouched. The judgment of this court referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner delivered in case titled Ghulam Hassan Khanyari v. Riyaz Ahmad Bhat, bearing CM(M) no. 330/2023 decided on 23.08.2024 is not applicable to the instant case in view of its peculiar facts and circumstances. 10. The instant petition is, as such, dismissed on the above lines. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Srinagar 21.08.2025 Misba Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No Whether the judgment is Reportable: Yes/No