2026:HHC:25424 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 278/2026 Decided on: 24.06.2026 Hans Raj …..Petitioner Versus Bheelo & anr. …Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The instant petition arises out of order dated 02.04.2026, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chamba, H.P., whereby an application filed by the defendant/respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement, came to be allowed. 2 The facts, as emerge in the instant case, are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant No.1, Bheelo, before the learned trial court. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 3 The said suit was duly contested by the defendant/respondent No.1 by raising various preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action, collusiveness, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, in para 3 of the written statement, it was categorically denied by defendant No.1 that the plaintiff has constructed a shed and started welding workshop after taking electricity connection by obtaining no objection certificate from the defendants. In fact, the plaintiff or defendant No.2 never came in possession of the suit land and the construction of a building over a part of the suit land has been carried out by defendant No.1 in the year 2008, however in para 8 of the written statement, it has been incorporated that defendant No.2 is in cultivating possession of the suit land. Realizing the mistake, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement on the ground that due to clerical and typographical error in para 8 of the written statement, defendant No.2 has been written, which in fact, was defendant No.1. The numerical error has changed sense of entire paragraph and the same is also against the specific stand of defendant No.1 taken in the entire written statement. 4 The said application for amendment of written statement came to be resisted by the present petitioner/plaintiff 3 by filing reply, wherein it was averred that the application is an afterthought and no relief can be granted to defendant No.1 in light of admission as made by him in his written statement. The alleged assertion has neither been substantiated or supported by any material, therefore, the application for amendment of written statement was sought to be dismissed. 5 The learned trial court vide its order, dated 02.04.2026 allowed the application, as filed by defendant No.1 subject to cost of Rs.500/-. 6 Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/petitioner has approached this court by filing the instant petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7 Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner has contended that the impugned order, as passed by the learned trial court, is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that application in question is not maintainable as parameters as laid down in provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC are not made out, therefore, no relief could have been granted to defendant No.1. 8 Mr. Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for defendant/respondent No.1, has defended the impugned order. He has submitted that this Court, while invoking provisions of 4 article 227 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere with the well-reasoned order, as passed by the learned trial court. 9 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record. 10 As noticed above, the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract against defendant No.1, Bheelo, before the learned trial court. The said suit came to be contested by defendant/respondent No.1, by taking categorical stand that the plaintiff or defendant No.2 never came in possession of the suit land and the construction of a building over a part of the suit land has been carried out by defendant No.1 in the year 2008. In the entire body of the written statement, it has been projected that it is defendant No.1, who is in possession of the suit property, however by inadvertence and on account of typographical error in para 8 of the written statement, it has been stated that defendant No.2 is in cultivating possession of the suit land. This error seems to be a typographical error and the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the entire body of the written statement reflects the stand of defendant No.1 that he is in possession of the suit property. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the amendment, sought to be incorporated by defendant No.1 in his written statement, is a 5 typographical error, which needs to be rectified and has rightly been done by the learned trial court. 11 As admitted by learned counsel for the parties, the suit is at an initial stage and issues have not been framed till date. More over on account of amendment, as allowed by the learned trial court, no prejudice, if any, seems to have been done to the plaintiff/petitioner. This Court is in agreement with the observations and findings as returned by the learned trial court while allowing the application for amendment of written statement. 12 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 plaintiffs. The defendants are bound to prove their case. 13 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 6 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- (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 7 set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint. 14 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. 15 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Akkiraju Panduranga Rao vs. Gundlapally Ranga Rao, 2026 INSC 428, has held as under:- “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.” 16 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. 8 17 In view of aforesaid discussions, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed. (Romesh Verma) 24th June, 2026 Judge (pankaj)