6IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 83 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.07.2025 State of HP & Anr. .....Petitioners. Versus Hem Raj and Anr. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.06.2024, passed by the Civil Judge, Court No.3, Shimla, HP, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement, filed by the present petitioners, has been rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the petition and documents appended thereto. 3. Admittedly, in the case at hand, written statement was filed in May 2018. The application seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, was filed by the present petitioners after closure of evidence of the present respondents/plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. 4. The evidence of the respondents (plaintiffs) was closed on 02.11.2023. The suit, in the case at hand, was filed by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 respondents/plaintiffs, seeking a mandatory injunction, directing the present petitioners to acquire the suit land. In the written statement filed by the present petitioners before the trial Court, it was averred that the land for building the road, in the case at hand, was donated by the father of the present respondents, during his lifetime and the same was stated to have been donated by the father of the present respondents in the year 2005-06. 5. During the evidence of the plaintiffs, one PW4-Thakur Dass had been produced, who had placed on record death certificate i.e Ex.PW4/A of the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents i.e. their father (Gopi Chand). As per the death certificate placed on record, it is evident that predecessor-in-interest (father of the present respondents) had died on 09.11.1987. 6. In view of the aforesaid evidence led, the version of the present petitioners in the written statement filed before the learned Trial Court that the father of the present respondents had donated the land for construction of the road in question, in the year 2005-06 stands belied. 7. It is in the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, was filed by the present petitioners, seeking amendment of their written statement. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the application filed under order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been filed after framing of 3 issues and after evidence has been closed on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs, on 02.01.2023. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the learned trial Court correctly appreciated the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Other than the aforesaid, it has been correctly pointed out by the learned Trial Court that by virtue of the amendment now sought to be made an admission made in the written statement is sought to be withdrawn by the present petitioners. 9. Other than the aforesaid, once the evidence on behalf of the respondents has been led, it has been correctly observed by the learned Trial Court that allowing the amendment at this stage, would cause grave prejudice to the present respondents/plaintiffs. 10. The entire object of the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of application for amending pleadings subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and to ensure that the parties to the lis have sufficient knowledge of other’s case. It also helps checking the delays in filing the applications. 11. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced. After the commencement of trial, an application for amendment can only be allowed once the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the parties could 4 not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the absolute discretion to allow amendment, at any stage, therefore stands curtailed. In this regard, a reference can be made to (2019) 4 SCC 332 titled as M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma (dead) by legal representatives and others. 12. The least that is expected of a litigant and an Advocate representing the party is that they must engage in due diligence to determine that the representation made by them in the written statement filed are factually accurate. In fact, in the case at hand the persons, who prepared the written statement signed and verified, the same, had they shown some attention, factually, inaccurate details qua the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents being alive in the year 2004-05, could have been avoided. In such circumstances, it cannot be construed that due diligence was adhered to. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, I see no material illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Shimla, HP, therefore, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 24th July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)