Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:26012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. : 203 of 2026 Decided on : 01.07.2026 Lal Singh & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Prakash Chand …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge
(Oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the
order dated 17.03.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., (Camp at Dharampur) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No. 32/2026, in Civil Suit titled as
“Prakash Chand Vs Lal Singh & Anr.”.
2. By way of order dated 17.03.2026, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order 6 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2026:HHC:26012 Rule 17 of CPC, filed by the petitioners, in the above titled suit.
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 petition before this Court, may be summed up, as under: 4.1 Plaintiff Prakash Chand has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the defendants, asserting the fact that he is owner in possession of land bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 81min/149min, bearing Khasra No. 2904, land measuring 000085 hectare, situated in Village Kumharda/118, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’), along with his brother Ramesh Kumar and sister Meena Devi. 4.2 It is his further case that his father Sh. Kapoor Singh alias Kapoor Chand has exchanged the suit land with Dayal s/o Sh. Jogi, resident of Kumharda, P.O. Pehad, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P., in the year 2008 and thereafter, he had raised the construction of two rooms and installed the floor mill and rice mill in those
3 2026:HHC:26012 rooms for his livelihood. Entry to this effect has also been incorporated in the revenue record as ‘Gair Mumkin Machine’ and after the death of father of the plaintiff, the legal heirs of Kapoor Singh, inherited the same and they are enjoying the peaceful possession of the same. 4.3 It is his further case that the defendants are stranger to the suit land and without any right, title and interest, have started interfering in the suit land by interfering in the rooms by putting lock in one room and by way of collecting construction material there. 4.4 On the basis of above facts, the relief, as claimed in the suit, has been sought. 5. When put to notice, the suit has been contested by the defendants by filing the written statement, in which, they had taken the plea that the suit is not maintainable, plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action, he has no locusstandi to file the suit on account of abandonment of his right, he has concealed the material facts and suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction. 5.1 The contents of the plaint have been denied by pleading that in the year 19901991, when the defendant
4 2026:HHC:26012 was serving in the Army, he has constructed two rooms at his own expenses over the suit land, out of which, one room was given to Kapoor Chand, being brother of the defendant, and the other room was kept by the defendant.
5.2 He has further contested the suit on the ground that the predecessorininterest of the plaintiff and defendants, in the presence of witnesses have decided to partition Khasra No. 2904 in equal shares. The predecessorininterest of the plaintiff had admitted and agreed in the presence of witnesses that the floor and paddy machine will be shifted by the predecessorin interest of the plaintiff to the new rooms constructed by him over the suit land. 5.3 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the suit. 6. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed the issues and after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, when the case was listed for DWs, an application under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been moved by the defendants to amend their written statement by adding para 3(a) in the written statement. The said proposed amendment is reproduced as under:
5 2026:HHC:26012
“3(a) That without consent of the defendants and without getting the alleged Exchange Deed registered as the value of the exchanged land exceeds more than Rs. 100/ and in absence of such requirement of law, the exchange of land between Kapoor the predecessorin interest of the plaintiff and Dayal, s/o Jogi, R/o Village Kumharda, P.O. Pehad, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P., out of the joint land also owned & possessed by the defendant No. 1 is void, illegal and not operative on the rights of the defendants and only the Mutation No. 199, dated 19.01.2006 has been attested and such mutation does not create any right, title & interest.”
7. According to them, the aforesaid amendment is necessary for the purpose of just adjudication of the case and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff.
8. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
9. This application has been contested by the plaintiff by taking preliminary objection that the application is not maintainable, as, the case is at the verge of arguments and both the parties have examined their witnesses. According to the plaintiff, the proposed amendment is not necessary for the just adjudication of the case. 9.1 On merits, the contents of the application, except the pendency of the Civil Suit, have been denied. Thus, the plaintiff has prayed for the dismissal of the application.
6 2026:HHC:26012
10. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 17.03.2026, has dismissed the application, mainly on the ground that the ingredients, as per provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, have not been pleaded and proved and the proposed amendment is not based upon the subsequent events.
11. Feeling aggrieved from the said dismissal of the application, the present petition has been filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application, as the proposed amendment was clarificatory in nature and based upon the legal submissions.
12. According to the petitionersdefendants, the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the stand, as taken in the written statement. Challenging the
order passed by the learned trial Court, by virtue of which, application has been dismissed, a prayer has been made to allow the application by setting aside the order dated 17.03.2026, by allowing the application, as prayed for. 13. Heard. 14. From the above stand, one thing is clear that the application for proposed amendment has been moved
7 2026:HHC:26012 by the defendants, when case was listed for DWs. Meaning thereby, the trial has already been commenced. 15. Admittedly, the proposed amendment is not based on the subsequent events, which had taken place after the filing of the written statement, as well as, after the commencement of the trial. 16. Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, are reproduced, as under:
“17. Amendment of pleadings. 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 read 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. If the stand of the petitionersdefendants, as taken in the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, is seen, in the light of the above provisions, it can safely be said that the necessary facts, with regard to the legal requirement, to seek amendment, after the commencement of trial, have not been pleaded in the application. 18. Merely pleading that the amendment is necessary and will not change the nature of the written
8 2026:HHC:26012 statement, would not fulfill the ingredients of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 19. Legislature, in its wisdom, has mandated that the amendment of the pleadings shall not be allowed after the commencement of trial, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of the due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the absence of any explanation, as to why the application has not earlier been moved before the commencement of trial, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be allowed, as a matter of right. 20.
The present petitionersdefendants are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of interference under Article 277 of the Constitution of India, has elaborately been discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan, 2025 INSC 606”. Relevant para 9 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
“Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.”
9 2026:HHC:26012
21. Even otherwise, in a recent decision in case
“Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Verus B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors., 2026 INSC 434”, the scope of interference has again be explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph 35 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
“35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported.
The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.”
22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the applicants are not able to make out a case, in which, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised, as the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the factual
10 2026:HHC:26012 position, as well as, the legal provisions applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
23. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
24. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s)
disposed of.
(Virender Singh) 1st July, 2026
Judge (Pramod Kumar)