2025:HHC:29939 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.104 of 2021 Decided on: 03.09.2025 Subhash Chand … Petitioner Versus Mahal Chand (deceased) through his legal heirs Saroj Bala and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Vishvender, Advocate, vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shivom Vashisht, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the record of the case may kindly be called for, this petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 25.3.2021 PASSED BY LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION BAIJNATH DISTT. KANGRA IN CMA NO, 101/2021 filed IN CS NO. 111/2014 WHEREBY THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC HAS BEEN ALLOWED AND THE PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE CIVIL SUIT may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29939 2. The petitioners have assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, with the prayer to place on record the report of the Local Commissioner in another suit between the same parties has been allowed and further, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for the amendment of the plaint by incorporating Para-7 in the plaint, events as are culled out from the report of the Local Commissioner has been allowed. 3. Learned Court below, while allowing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code held that in light of the fact that Local Commissioner, though appointed in the other case was not restricted to the demarcation of the suit land in that case and as his report also relates to the suit land in the present case, therefore, the application was liable to be allowed as the same depicted encroachment upon the suit land by the defendant. Further, in light of this application being allowed, learned Court below also allowed the amendment in the plaint by observing that while allowing the proposed facts to be incorporated in the plaint, neither any weightage was being given to the report of the Local Commissioner as it was merely a piece of paper explaining 3 2025:HHC:29939 the facts and further the parties shall be getting equal opportunity to support or rebut the said facts as well as the documents. 4. This Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Trial Court while allowing these two applications in the facts of this case calls for no interference. Though, there was a delay in filing the applications as the Commission was executed somewhere in the year 2015, however, it is a matter of record that the Local Commissioner did prepare a report which also relates to the present suit land. The order passed by the learned Trial Court in the circumstance was the correct order. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court that because the report of the Local Commissioner was being allowed to be placed on record, the same does not prove its veracity and both the parties would get opportunity to support or rebut the said report and further, incorporation of a para in the plaint by way of amendment also does not cause any prejudice to the defendant as the proposed amendment was only explanatory in nature and the contents thereof can be easily met by the defendant in defence. 5. In light of above observations, as this Court does not 4 2025:HHC:29939 find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 03, 2025 (Rishi)