( 2025:HHC:21854 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 20 of 2025. Date of decision : 8th July, 2025. Jarnail Singh alias Ricky & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Om Parkash & Ors. ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Rahul Chauhan, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Petitioners herein are the defendants in Civil Suit No. 209/1 of 2012 pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P. 2. The suit has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of land comprised in Khewat No. 68 min, Khatauni No. 209, Khasra No.2372, measuring 0-01-58 hectares situated in Village Amlehar, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (for short “the suit land”). Decree for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunctions has been sought against the petitioners/defendants on the premise that 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ( 2025:HHC:21854 ) they were stranger to the suit land and still were trying to encroach upon the same. 3. The petitioners/defendants are contesting the suit by denying the allegations of encroachment on the suit land. 4. After the parties concluded their respective evidence, the petitioners/defendants filed an application for amendment of the written statement. Additional plea was sought be raised to the effect that during the pendency of the suit i.e. on 01.11.2024, the petitioner/defendants had purchased a share measuring 00-00-09 hectares in the suit land from one of the co-sharer by way of execution of registered sale deed. 5. Learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioners/defendants for amendment of written statement on the grounds, firstly, that the amendment, if allowed, will change the nature of the suit; secondly, even if the petitioners/defendants had purchased a small portion of the suit land, it was not going to help them on merits; thirdly, the conduct of the petitioners/defendants in purchasing the share in the suit land was not bonafide and lastly that the amendment was sought at a belated stage. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the material placed on record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reasons detailed hereafter. -3- ( 2025:HHC:21854 ) 7. Learned trial Court has ventured into prejudging the issue and thus, the learned trial Court has fallen into error by wrongly exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. The effect of the amendment on the merits of the case has wrongly been considered as relevant factor by learned trial Court. The Court while deciding the application for amendment appears to have been over possessed by the evidence on record more particularly the demarcation report whereby the defendants were alleged to have encroached upon the suit land. 8. The foremost requirement for adjudicating upon a prayer for amendment of pleadings is whether such amendment is necessary for adjudication of real controversy between the parties. Evidently, this important aspect has been totally ignored by the learned trial Court. The petitioners/defendants had sought the leave of the Court to amend written statement and what was sought to be pleaded was a simple fact that during the pendency of the suit petitioners/defendants had purchased a share in the suit land. It cannot be said that the incorporation of said fact was alien to the issue involved inter se the parties. Its effect on merits of the case could not be the relevant consideration for deciding the application for amendment. 9. The filing of application at the time of final hearing of the suit could also not be a ground to reject a prayer for the reason that the fact which was sought to be incorporated in the written -4- ( 2025:HHC:21854 ) statement had taken place only on 01.11.2024 and the application was immediately filed thereafter in the month of January, 2025. 10. In result, the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb in CMA No. 15/6 of 2025 in Civil Suit No. 209/1 of 2012 is set aside. Accordingly, the application bearing CMA No. 15/6 of 2025 of the petitioners/defendants qua the amendment of the written statement is allowed. Petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any. (Satyen Vaidya) 8th July, 2025. Judge (jai)