1 ( 2026:HHC:24062 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CR No.80 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.06.2026 Sunita Devi …Petitioner Versus Baikunth Lal …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner-Sunita Devi has filed the present revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ((hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) against the order dated 14.05.2026, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.174/2026, in Civil Suit No.29 of 2021, titled as Sunita Devi versus Baikunth Lal. 2. Vide order dated 14.05.2026, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order 6, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:24062 ) Rule 17 of CPC, moved by the petitioner in Civil Suit titled as Sunita Devi versus Baikunth Lal, as referred to above. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present revision petition, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:- 4.1. Plaintiff-Sunita Devi filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant not to interfere in the land comprising Khata-Khatauni No.249/331, Khasra No.676/375 min, measuring 62-04-00 bighas, to the extent of her share i.e. 204.75 Sq.meters, situated in Mauza Trilokpur, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., as per Jamabandi for the year 2013-14. The said suit has been filed on the ground that the plaintiff is absolute co- owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 204.75 Sq. meters and the defendant is totally stranger. 4.2. This suit has been contested by the defendant by filing the written statement. Thereafter, the issues were framed and during the pendency of the lis, local 3 ( 2026:HHC:24062 ) Commissioner was appointed and he has submitted his report. When the case was listed for arguments then, the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, has been moved by the plaintiff. 4.3. The said application has been moved on the ground that when, the case was being prepared by her counsel for arguments, then, it transpired that the local Commissioner appointed, by the Court, visited the spot and submitted the report. As per the report, local Commissioner found that the defendant had raised construction of tin shed, over the portion of the suit land. 4.4. On the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner, the plaintiff has prayed that the pleadings are required to be amended, as such, it has been prayed that the plaintiff may kindly be permitted to amend para- 5(a), in the plaint. The proposed amendment has been pleaded, as under:- (a) That during the pendency of the suit and injunctory order passed by this learned Court against the defendant, he in utter disregard and disobedience to the said order, illegally encroached upon a portion of suit land/property being Abadi of the plaintiff and raised Tin shades thereon unlawfully. This unlawful act of the defendant deserves to be negated by this learned 4 ( 2026:HHC:24062 ) Court by issuing a direction to him in the form of mandatory injunction to dismantle and removed the Tin Shades from the suit property of the suit shown with site plan and location plan and put plaintiff in physical possession thereof. Similarly in prayer clause following added in prayer shall be added. The site plan issued by Er. Navej Alam is also attached herewith.” 4.5. According to the plaintiff, on the basis of the proposed amendment, decree for mandatory injunction to remove and dismantle the tin shed, has also been prayed for. 5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 6. This application has been contested by the defendant, by taking the preliminary objections that the application is not legally maintainable; the case is now fixed for final arguments and the application is based upon false and concocted facts. 7. The application has been further contested on the ground that the examination in-chief of the plaintiff was recorded on 10.10.2023 and cross examination was conducted on 09.09.2024. In her cross examination, the plaintiff has admitted that on 26.09.2021, tin shed had been constructed. 5 ( 2026:HHC:24062 ) 8. The application has also been contested on the ground that the report regarding the construction was also lodged with the police on 24.03.2022 and thereafter, on 25.03.2022, the plaintiff has moved the application under Section 151 of CPC for seeking the necessary help to implement the stay order, which was dismissed. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 10. Plaintiff filed the rejoinder and denied the preliminary objections, as well as, the contents of the reply, by virtue of which, the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been contested. 11. Learned trial Court thereafter, dismissed the application, vide order dated 14.05.2026, mainly on the ground that the report of Local Commissioner was submitted on 20.09.2025. Thereafter, no attempt was made by the plaintiff till 19.03.2026. During that period, the plaintiff had filed the application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC and after the disposal of the said application, case was listed for arguments. 6 ( 2026:HHC:24062 ) 12. According to the learned trial Court, existence of the tin shed was already in the knowledge of the plaintiff and is not a new fact, which she got to know from the report of Local Commissioner. In this regard, the learned trial Court has relied upon the statement given by the plaintiff, on oath. 13. The application has been dismissed mainly on the ground that no due diligence has been exercised by the plaintiff and the application is stated to be an attempt to delay the trial on one pretext or the other. 14. The said findings have been assailed by way of the present revision petition. 15. Heard. 16. Perusal of the record shows that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, is totally silent about the reason as to why the application has been filed at the fag end of the trial, when, the case was listed for arguments. The ingredients with regard to the proviso added with the Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC have not been pleaded. The provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC are reproduced as under:- 7 ( 2026:HHC:24062 ) “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 17. When there is nothing in the application, as to why the application for amendment was not moved immediately, after receipt of the report of the Local Commissioner, then, allowing such application would be nothing, but, giving the premium to the plaintiff on her inaction. Even otherwise, in case, such type of applications are allowed, that too, at the fag end of the trial, then, there would be no end to the litigation. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff could not point out any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 19. Considering these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the 8 ( 2026:HHC:24062 ) present petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Virender Singh) Judge June 22, 2026 (subhash)