2025:HHC:30290 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 149 of 2022 Decided on: 05.09.2025 Ram Dev and another … Petitioner Versus Roshan Lal and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(c) and 2. : Mr. G.R. Plasra, Advocate for respondents No. 3, 4 and 5(f). : Respondents No. 5( c ) (i) to 5(c)(ii) ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by the present petitions under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the application 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:30290 filed under Order VI, Rule, 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the present petitioners and other documents appended with the petition. 3. It is a matter of record that the civil suit pertains to the year 2012 and the written statement was also filed in the month of February, 2013. What the petitioners intended to amend by way of application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the month of March, 2020, was that they wanted to substitute the response filed to para-6 of the plaint on merit on the ground that in the original written statement inadvertently in para-6 of the reply on merit of the written statement it was wrongly typed that para-5 is also admitted to be correct. Relevant paras of the application are being quoted herein below:- “That the execution and registration of the aforesaid Will dated 4-4-2006 has also been specifically pleaded in the written statement by the applicant/defendants No. 3 & 4 but inadvertently in para 6 of reply on merits of the written statement it has wrongly been typed as Para No. 5 is also admitted to be correct whereas the reply to para No. 6 of written statement was as This para is wrong not admitted and hence denied The detailed reply has been submitted above in paras supra". 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case the applicant/defendant No. 3 & 4 intend to amend the 3 2025:HHC:30290 para No. 6 of the written statement which fact came to knowledge of the applicant/defendants No. 3 & 4 when the counsel for the applicant / defendants No. 3 & 4 preparing for final arguments, noticed the said typing mistake. 5. That after the proposed amendment the para No. 6 of the reply on Merits of the written statement shall read as follow "This para is wrong not admitted and hence denied. The detailed reply has been submitted above in paras supra".” 4. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs inter alia on the ground that the proposed amendment that too at such a belated stage was without any due diligence and further the petitioners intended to withdraw an admission made in the written statement. 5. Learned Trial Court in terms of the impugned order has dismissed the application by holding as under:- “5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the case file in detail. 6. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that court may, at any stage of proceedings, allow cither party to amend his pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendment shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proviso to rule further added that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has 4 2025:HHC:30290 commenced, unless court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 7. Since, the applicants have filed the present application at the stage of final arguments, thus two questions, therefore required to be looked, into are firstly, whether the applicant, in spite of due diligence, could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial and secondly, whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 8. In the case in hand, it is matter of record that the suit was filed in the year 2012 and written statement to it was filed by applicants/defendants No.3 & 4 on 18.02.2013. Thereafter, replication to written statement of defendant No.3 & 4 was filed on 18.07.2013 wherein the plaintiff respondent has admitted the reply of para No.6 of the written statement of defendants No.3 & 4 in his replication and copy whereof was also supplied to defendants No.3 & 4 on the same day. To my mind, said admission by the respondent in his replication to the written statement of the defendants No.3 & 4, was sufficient notice of said mistake, either made intentionally or unintentionally to the defendants No.3 & 4 and if the defendants ivo.3 & 4 would had exercised due diligence, they could had raised the matter earlier that too before commencement of trial. 5 2025:HHC:30290 9. Even otherwise, by way of present application, the defendants No.3 & 4 intends to withdraw the admission made earlier whereupon the plaintiff/respondent has already acted upon as noticed supra and thus, if same would be permitted to withdrawn, prejudice would be caused to plaintiff/respondent and same would also result in fresh trial. 10. Thus, in view of above discussion, present application is hereby dismissed subject of cost of Rs. 1000/- for causing delay. Amendment written statement be taken off the record. Application stand disposed of. After doing needful, be tagged with main case file.” 6. This Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Trial Court call for no interference. Learned Trial Court has held in the impugned order that in terms of the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Court may, at any stage, allow a party to amend the pleadings but then such pleadings must be just and necessary for the determination of the real controversy in question. Learned Court has also held that the proviso to the Rule 17 further adds that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commended, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. Learned Trial Court thereafter held that herein the application for amendment was filed at the stage of final 6 2025:HHC:30290 arguments. Suit was filed in the year 2012 and the written statement was filed in the month of February, 2013. Replication was filed in the month of July, 2013. In this backdrop, learned Court held that the admission by the respondents, i.e. the plaintiffs in the replication to the written statement of defendants/respondents No. 3 and 4 was a sufficient notice of the so called mistake either made intentionally or unintentionally by defendants No. 3 and 4 and if defendants 3 and 4 had exercised due diligence, then they could have raised the matter much earlier and that too before the commencement of the trial. Learned Court further held that by way of the application, the applicants intended to withdraw the admission made by them earlier on which the plaintiffs have acted upon in terms of the response filed to the written statement, and in case, the application was allowed, it would permit the defendants to withdraw an admission made which would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs and would also result in a fresh trial. 7. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that the findings returned by learned Trial Court were perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. This means that after the written statement was filed by the defendants in the month of February, 2013 and replication to the contents thereof was filed by the plaintiff, had the applicants/defendants been diligent, 7 2025:HHC:30290 they could have immediately discovered the alleged mistake made by them, if indeed the said contention as made in the written statement was a mistake. Now in light of the fact that the application was filed after eight years, this possibility cannot be ruled out that the application is nothing but an afterthought just to wriggle out of the admission which was earlier made by the defendants. It is settled law that in the course of allowing the parties to amend the pleadings, more so, after commencement of the trial, the Court has to satisfy itself that despite due diligence, the party could not have incorporated the proposed amendment earlier. Herein, this Court is of considered view, as has been observed by learned Trial Court also, that the petitioners had the opportunity to file an application seeking amendment immediately after the replication was filed to the written statement. However, despite the fact that the replication was filed in the year 2013, the petitioners slept over the matter and the application was filed after eight years and that too on the plea that the same was being filed when the mistake was detected by the Counsel during the preparation of the case for final arguments. This in the considered view of the Court is no ground to allow an amendment after eight years permitting the party to withdraw an admission and thus, cause prejudice to the other party. 8. In the backdrop of above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in this petition and further as it does not find any 8 2025:HHC:30290 infirmity in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 05, 2025 (narender)