2026:HHC:23629 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 248/2026 Decided on: 19.06.2026 Gorkhu & ors. …..Petitioners Versus Kailash Chand & ors. …Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice RomeshVerma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Nitin Soni, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The instant petition arises out of order dated 30.03.2026, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul & Spiti, Kullu, H.P., whereby an application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint came to be allowed. 2 The facts, as emerge in the instant case, are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are co-owners in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 5798, Khata Khatauni No. 1485/2100, measuring 10-18-0 Bighas situated at Pahti Shiliahar Kothi Kotkandi, Tehsil 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Bhuntar, District Kullu, as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04 and that one Bhungar, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 6 shown as tenant on the suit land is wrong, illegal, null and void and the plaintiffs are not bound by the same with consequential relief of injunction restraining defendants No. 1 to 6 from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and from causing any sort of unlawful interference in the ownership and peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 3 The suit came to be instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants by making specific averments that predecessor- in-interest of Bhungar never remained in possession of the suit land and did not cultivate the suit land at any point of time and thus, the revenue entries showing Bhungar as tenant are not correct. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the proceedings of the revenue Courts, Bhungar, also died, who was son of Bhadru and his LRs i.e. defendants No. 1 to 6 were brought on record. Further it has been stated that even after death of Bhungar, defendants No. 1 to 6 never cultivated the land or remained in possession of the suit land in any manner. 4 The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 6 by filing written statement, wherein preliminary objections qua cause of action, maintainability, estoppel, limitation etc. were 3 raised and all the averments and allegations, as levelled in the plaint, were refuted and denied and, therefore, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit. 5 The plaintiffs thereafter filed replication, wherein all the averments as made in the plaint were reiterated. 6 During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs/respondents filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint, wherein it was averred that at the time of filing of the suit, due to clerical mistake, in 3rd para in 8th line after words “son of” and before words “and his”, the word “Bhadru” has been wrongly mentioned in the plaint, whereas correct name of father of Bhungar is Ram Ditta. It was further averred that the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint in the 3rd para in 8th line after words "son of" and before words "and his" the word "Bhadru" to be replaced with word "Ram Ditta" and after amendments para No. 3 of the plaint may be read as under: “That the predecessor in interest of Sh. Bhungar never remained in possession of the suit land and also not cultivated the suit land at any point of time and the revenue entries showing the predecessor in interest of defendants No. 1 to 6 are not correct as per factual position on the spot. It is further submitted here that during the pendency of the proceeding of the revenue Courts Sh. Bhungar also died who was the son of Sh. Ram Ditta and his Lrs i.e. defendants No. 1 to 6 were also brought on record. Even 4 after the death of Sh. Bhungar the defendant No. 1 to 6 also never cultivated the land or remained in possession of the suit land in any manner.” 7 It was further averred that the amendment sought to be introduced shall not cause any prejudice to the defendants rather the amendment is necessary in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations inter se the parties. 8 The aforesaid application for amendment came to be resisted by the present petitioners/defendants, by filing a reply, wherein it was stated that the application is not maintainable in its present form as the same has been filed at a belated stage and in case the application is allowed that will change entire nature of the plaint. 9 The learned trial court vide its order, dated 30.03.2026 allowed the application subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/-. 10 Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, dated 30.03.2026, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11 It is contended by Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He 5 further submits that after accepting the instant petition, application for amendment deserves to be dismissed. 12 On the other hand, Mr. Nitin Soni, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs, has defended the impugned order. He would submit that by instituting an application for amendment, no specific changes have been made in the body of the plaint and only name of Bhadru is to be changed or to be shown as Ram Ditta. He further submits that no substantial change in the character of the plaint is being sought and the proposed amendment is explanatory and clarificatory in nature and while invoking power under article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not interfere with the well-reasoned order, as passed by the learned trial court. 13 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 14 It is an admitted fact that the suit came to be instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents for seeking declaration against the petitioners/defendants that they are co-owners in possession of the land measuring 10-18-0 Bigha comprised in Khasra No. 5798, Khata Khatauni No. 1485/2100, situated at Pahti Shiliahar Kothi Kotkandi, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu and name of Bhungar, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 6 shown as tenant on the suit land is wrong, illegal, null 6 and void and the plaintiffs are not bound by the same with consequential relief of injunction, as aforesaid. 15 The application, which has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for amendment of the plaint, reveals that only correction, which is sought to be introduced in the body of the plaint, is that name of Bhadru is to be shown as Ram Ditta. Save and accept change of name of said Bhadru, no specific changes have been sought to be introduced in the plaint by by the plaintiffs. As rightly held by the learned trial court that no special or drastic changes have been made by filing application for amendment and the proposed amendment is rather self explanatory. 16 Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants further submits that admission as made in the plaint cannot be permitted to be resiled by the plaintiffs by way of application. 17 To the said contention, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that there is no categorical admission on part of the plaintiffs and being dominus litis, the plaintiffs have instituted the suit and by changing the aforesaid name, now onus lies on them to prove and plead their case, therefore, such submission as raised by the defendants does not hold good. 7 18 The amendment, as sought, is clarificatory and it does not materially alter the sum and substance of the pleadings. As per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court, the amendment can be allowed in case it does not change the basic structure of the suit. The amendment, as sought, cannot be said to be prejudicial to the rights of the defendants. The plaintiffs are bound to prove their case. 19 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents, certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2022 SCC Online SC 1128, after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:- (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if- 8 (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are – (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint. 20 Similar exposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 337; Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors.; (2007) 5 SCC 602 and B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parmeswaran Pillai & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 712. 21 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Akkiraju Panduranga Rao vs. Gundlapally Ranga Rao, 2026 INSC 428, has held as under:- 9 “17. It is a settled position of law that while deciding an application seeking amendment of pleadings, courts should not delve into the technicalities of law; rather, a liberal approach should be followed, inasmuch as the object and purpose of allowing amendment in the pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of litigation.” 22 Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no error or perversity in the impugned order, as passed by the learned trial court and the learned trial court has rightly allowed the application for amendment after taking into consideration material placed on record. 23 In view of aforesaid discussions, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, but with modification that the costs, which was imposed by the learned trial court to the tune of Rs.2000/- is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the petitioners/defendants. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed. (Romesh Verma) 19th June, 2026 Judge (pankaj)