2025:HHC:28643 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 111 of 2025 Decided on : 25.08.2025 Rajeev Kumar Mahajan …Petitioner Versus Sh. Vinay Kumar Mahajan …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 18.01.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P, in Civil Suit No. 1509 of 2013, titled Vinay Kumar Mahajan Vs. Rajeev Kumar Mahajan, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner herein, under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC), for amendment of the written statement, was dismissed. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28643 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and having perused the impugned order, this Court finds no infirmity therein. 3. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to perform certain acts, requiring him to discharge a trust in a particular manner and the case was at the stage of recording the evidence of the defendant when the application was filed for incorporating the amendments in the written statement. It was not the case of the applicant/defendant that the proposed amendments were such which were not in the knowledge of the applicant at the time when the written statement was filed. 4. This obviously demonstrates that there was no due diligence exercised by the applicant at the time of the filing of the written statement and further the intent of the applicant by seeking amendment was to fill up the lacuna in the written statement. 5. In this backdrop, the dismissal of the application by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted with. Further, learned 3 2025:HHC:28643 Trial Court has also observed that even if the factum regarding compliance of certain directions contained in previous judgment and decree of the Court were required to be proved by the defendant, he may do so during defendant's evidence, but filing of the application to fill up the lacuna was not permissible. 6. In light of said observations of the Trial Court also, this Court sees no occasion to interface with the same, as the interest of the applicant was been protected by the learned Trial Court. 7. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as this Court finds no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 25, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)