2025:HHC:29951 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 82 of 2022 Decided on: 03.09.2025 Pushpinder Kumar … Petitioner Versus Mangtu …… Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anita Devi, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by learned Court below, in terms whereof, the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement has been declined. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the impugned order and submitted that as the prayer for amendment of the written statement was sought at the pre-trial stage, therefore, learned Trial Court erred in not allowing the application. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order for the reason that, in case the proposed amendment was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29951 allowed, it would have changed the very nature of the defence taken by the defendant, which could have prejudiced the case of the plaintiff and in this backdrop, there is no infirmity in the order under challenge and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the contents of the application, seeking amendment in the written statement. 5. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrates that a suit for the grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant on the ground that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and the defendant is a stranger to the suit land, yet the defendant, on the strength of a wrong entry incorporated in the column Khana Kast in the name of Neelam Singh, was threatening the plaintiff that he would raise structure upon the suit land. 6. The written statement filed to the plaint demonstrates that the stand taken therein by the defendant was that the defendant was in actual physical possession of the part of the suit land and this land was recorded to be in the ownership and possession of the defendant and the plaintiff has got no concern with this land any more whatsoever. 3 2025:HHC:29951 7. In this backdrop, if one peruses the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (appended as Annexure P-4 with the petition), a perusal thereof demonstrates that it was mentioned in the said application that the suit was pending adjudication and the applicant/defendant intended to add the proposed amendments to the effect that the defendant had perfected his title over disputed land by way of adverse possession for just decision of the case as the same could not be mentioned earlier out of inadvertence. Besides this, nothing is mentioned in the application as to why the proposed amendment was intended to be introduced in the written statement could not be earlier incorporated. In this backdrop, if one peruses the order passed by learned Trial Court, one finds that the application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by assigning the following reasons:- “I have heard Ld. Counsels for ne parties and gone through the record carefully. Perusal of prayer as made in the present application goes to show that the same does not appear to be a subsequent event. Moreover, if the applicant/defendant is in possession over the suit land for more than 45 years, then this plea should had been taken by him in his previous written statement. However if the previous written statement, 4 2025:HHC:29951 as filed by the defendant is perused, in 3rd line of para No.1 the defendant has submitted that he is in actual physical possession of part of the suit land i.e. khasra No.399. Also, inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleading. In view of above discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that if the amendment is allowed, it will change the nature of entire suit. Fact alleged is not a subsequent event not in knowledge of the party Accordingly, the application is dismissed No order as to costs. Application stands disposed-of be registered and tagged with main case file for record.” 6. This Court is of the considered view that the reasoning which has been assigned by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, calls for no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Trial Court has rightly held that there was nothing in the application to show as to why the proposed amendment could not be earlier incorporated. Learned Trial Court also correctly held that in case the proposed amendments were allowed to be incorporated, then the same would not only introduce 5 2025:HHC:29951 inconsistency and contradictory stands but the same would negate the admitted position of facts as were existing on account of filing of the written statement. Though, this Court is not oblivious to the fact that the Court has to adopt a liberal attitude while allowing an amendment at a pre-trial stage and more so, when the issue is relatable to the amendment of a written statement, but then amendment cannot be allowed to be incorporated in the pleadings at the throw of a hand. Some justifiable cause has to be demonstrated by the party, even at the pre-trial stage so as to justify allowing of said application by the Court. 7. In the present case, the application seeking amendment contained no reasons as to why the proposed amendments could not be incorporated earlier and further why now at this stage, the same were being prayed to be incorporated. Moreover, when earlier the defence of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court was that he was the owner in possession of the suit land, then obviously, if now he is allowed to take the plea of adverse possession, it would indeed cause prejudice to the plaintiff as the petitioner would now, in the event of the amendments being allowed will be permitted to wriggle out of the earlier defence taken by him by taking a contradictory stand that too by way of amendment. Therefore, in view of above discussion, this Court does 6 2025:HHC:29951 not find any infirmity in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 03, 2025 (narender)