2025:HHC:31683 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.185 of 2023 Decided on: 15.09.2025 Hoshiyar Singh … Petitioner Versus Jai Prakash & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.1. No notice issued to respondents No.2 and 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 10.01.2023, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P., in terms whereof, the application filed by the respondent under Order 1, Rule 10 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code was allowed and the respondent/plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents appended with the petition as well as the impugned order, this Court does not finds any infirmity therein. 3. It is a matter of record that the petitioner herein filed an 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31683 application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party defendant in the suit. This application of the petitioner was allowed and he was impleaded as a party defendant. Pursuant thereto, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for permission to amend the plaint, which stood allowed. 4. In terms of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, where a defendant is added the plaint unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary. Therefore, the amendment which has been allowed by the learned Trial Court is in-consonance with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code and there is no perversity therein, because the impleadment of the defendant indeed has necessitated carrying out amendment in the plaint. 5. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed and the impugned order is sustained. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 1 5 , 2025 (Rishi)