CM(M) No.200 of 2025 Suppl.1 S.No.88 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … CM(M) No.200/2025 CM No.3128/2025 Ghulam Qadir Ahanger and Ors ... Petitioner(s) Through: -Mr.Mohammad Shafi Bhat and Mr. Faheem Andrabi, Advocates Vs. Executive Officer/Chairman Municipal Council Kulgam & Anr. …Respondent(s) Through: -None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 23.05.2025 1) The petitioners through the medium of present petition have challenged order dated 26.04.2025 passed by learned Sub Judge Kulgam, whereby application of the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been declined. 2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case. 3) It appears that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit against the respondents/defendants seeking a permanent CM(M) No.200 of 2025 prohibitory injunction restraining them from interfering in their possession over the land measuring 1 kanal under khasra No.4063/321 situated at Kulgam. 4) It also appears that after the written statement was filed by the defendants, issues came to be framed by the learned trial court on 23.07.2014. One of the issues framed by learned trial court was with regard to the ownership and possession of land measuring 1 kanal under khasra No.4063/321 situated at Kulgam. It also appears that during trial of the case Patwari of the concerned halqa made a statement before the trial court on 04.04.2015. During his examination the Patwari deposed that the land which is recorded in the name of plaintiffs falls under Khasra No.4075/321 and not in khasra No.4063/321. On 25.09.2017 plaintiffs filed an application seeking amendment of plaint to the extent that khasra number of the suit land be read as 4375/321 instead of 4063/321. The said application was allowed by learned trial court vide order dated 01.04.2019 and the plaintiffs were permitted to file amended plaint by incorporating survey No. of suit land as 4375/321 instead of 4063/321. 5) Another application seeking amendment of the plaint came to be filed by the plaintiffs on 12.12.2023 before the trial court in which it was submitted by the plaintiffs that the concerned patwari had furnished the revenue extract in respect of land under CM(M) No.200 of 2025 survey No.4375/321 but not of actual survey No. which is 4075/321. On this ground the plaintiffs again sought amendment of the plaint to the extent of effecting correction of survey no. of the suit land by changing it from 4375/321 to 4075/321. 6) The aforesaid application of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed by the learned trial court in terms of impugned order primarily on the ground that plaintiffs have not been diligent in seeking amendment of the plaint and that they have slept over their rights and approached the court at the time when the case was set down for final arguments. 7) The ground urged by the petitioner for challenging the impugned order is that the learned trial court has passed impugned order without appreciating the controversy. It has been further contended that learned trial court has not taken into account deposition of witnesses, which clearly shows, that the suit land is comprised in basic survey No.321. It has been further contended that learned trial court has not adhered to settled position of law that courts should be extremely liberal in granting a prayer for amendment of the pleadings. 8) If we have a look at the documents annexed with the petition, the Patwari in his statement has clearly deposed that the land which is in the name of the petitioners/plaintiffs is comprising in khasra No.4075/321. In spite of this, the plaintiffs CM(M) No.200 of 2025 made first application for amendment praying that khasra No.of suit land be read as 4375/321 instead of 4063/321. So the error, if any, has been committed by the plaintiffs and not by the Patwari concerned by furnishing the revenue extracts of land under khasra No.4375/321. It was clearly known to the plaintiffs that the Patwari had made his statement before the trial court that khasra no.of the suit land is 4075/321, but in spite of this the plaintiffs while seeking amendment of plaint sought to incorporate khasra No.of the suit land as 4375/321. Thus, it is not open to the plaintiffs to blame the Patwari for furnishing revenue extracts in respect of some different land and to hide their own faults. 9) The plaintiffs made the first application for amendment of the plaint after the trial of the case had already began and the learned trial court has taken a liberal view of the matter and granted their first application. The plaintiffs again committed mistake in describing the survey number of suit land and realized it at the time when the case was set down for final hearing and made a fresh application for amendment of the plaint. 10) Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC makes it clear that an application for amendment cannot be allowed after the trial is commenced unless court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. While it is true that court has to be CM(M) No.200 of 2025 liberal in granting application for amendment of the pleadings so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties, yet the situation becomes different if amendment is sought after the trial of the case has commenced. In order to permit a party to make amendment to the pleadings after the commencement of the trial, the court has to be satisfied that the party has acted with due diligence and that despite exercise of due diligence, he could not have raised matter before commencement of trial. 11) In the present case plaintiffs have not acted with due diligence right from the inception of the proceedings. The plaintiffs were expected to know actual khasra no. regarding which they have filed the suit which they fail to do at the time of filing the suit. Once the Patwari during the trial of the case had disclosed the actual khasra no of the land that was in plaintiffs’ possession, they had sufficient knowledge of the same, but inspite of this, the plaintiffs proceeded to describe wrong khasra No. of suit land in their application, which was allowed by the trial Court. This clearly shows lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiffs. At this stage, when the trial of the case has already concluded, it is not open to the plaintiffs to seek another amendment of the plaint on the same aspect of the case. The manner in which the plaintiffs have approached the case right from the inception clearly depicts negligence and carelessness on CM(M) No.200 of 2025 their part. Therefore, learned trial court has rightly declined to grant prayer of amendment on the second occasion. 12) The supervisory powers under article 227 of the constitution can be exercised by this Court only in rare cases when the inferior court has committed grave illegality or that there has been any serious miscarriage of justice. In the present case the learned trial court has not committed any illegality, much less a grave illegality while passing impugned order. Therefore, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. 13) For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 23.05.2025 Sarveeda Nissar Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 27.05.2025 17:16