1 2026:HHC:30477 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 380 of 2026 Decided on: 21.7.2026 Achhru Ram & others … Petitioners Versus Ram Dass & others …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 23.5.2026, (Annexure P-8), passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, H.P. in CMA No. 290/2026, filed in Civil Suit No. 68/1 of 2010, titled as, ‘Ram Dass & others versus Achhru Ram & others’. 2. By way of order dated 23.5.2026, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, in the above titled suit, by virtue of which, indulgence of the learned trial Court was sought to 2 2026:HHC:30477 permit the plaintiffs/respondents to amend their written statement. 3. Parties to the present petition are referred to in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts of the present petition, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up as under: Plaintiffs Ram Dass and others have filed suit for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction, against the defendants, with a prayer to pass a decree of possession, of vacant land after demolition of the structure comprised in Khasra No. 35/1, as per Tatima, measuring 5 biswas, situated at village Chanardi, Pargana Ghialat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. and also sought decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering over the land comprised in Khasra No. 35, measuring 1 bigha 9 biswas, situated at village Chanardi, Pargana Ghialat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. 3 2026:HHC:30477 4.1 The said suit has been contested by the defendants by filing written statement, in which, they have taken the preliminary objections, qua the fact that the suit is not valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction; the suit has not been filed by the plaintiffs in consonance with the orders of dismissal of the earlier suit, according to which, the plaintiff was required to file the present suit on the same cause of action; the suit is not maintainable; the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit, on account of their acts and conduct. 4.2 As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the suit. 5. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed replication, denying the contents of the written statement, by virtue of which, the suit of the plaintiffs has been contested. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court, vide order dated 7.7.2011, has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of vacant land after demolition of the structure over the suit land, as prayed for?....OPP. 4 2026:HHC:30477 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering over the suit land, as prayed for?....OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged?...OPD. 4. whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged?...OFD. 5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged?...OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his own act, conduct and acquiescences, as alleged?....OPD. 7. Relief. 7. Thereafter, the parties were directed to adduce the evidence. 8. During the pendency of the suit, defendants moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, on 29.11.2025. 9. By way of the said application, the defendants have sought permission to add paras 2A and 4A, in the preliminary objections. The said amendment, according to the defendants, is necessary and bonafide to determine the real controversy, involved in the present case. 5 2026:HHC:30477 10. The said application has been contested by the plaintiffs, denying the factual position, mainly on the ground, that the application is not maintainable, at this belated stage, as the case is now fixed for final arguments. 11. As per the reply, filed to the application, the said Civil suit is fixed for arguments from 1.8.2017. The application is also stated to be not maintainable, after commencement of the trial, which is stated to have commenced in the year 2012. 12. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were having all the record in their custody and they have not pleaded the explanation, as to why, the amendment was not sought prior to the commencement of the trial. 13. The defendants have filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the plaintiffs, denying the preliminary objections, as well as, contents of the reply, by virtue of which, the application has been contested. 14. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 23.5.2026, dismissed the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 6 2026:HHC:30477 15. Aggrieved from the said order, the present petition has been filed, before this Court, mainly on the ground that the order, under challenge, is a non- speaking order; the application has been dismissed, without assigning any reasons; the application has been dismissed ignoring the principles, applicable for deciding the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as according to the defendants, the proposed amendment is required for determining the real controversy, involved in the present case. 16. The impugned order has also been assailed, on the ground, that without allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the real point of controversy, cannot be determined and adjudicated effectively, between the parties, by the learned trial Court. 17. Reiterating the factual position, as mentioned in the application, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, by setting aside the impugned order and to allow the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 18. Heard. 7 2026:HHC:30477 19. Admittedly, the lis was instituted in the year 2010. Thereafter, the written statement has been filed, in the year 2010, itself. Thereafter, the issues were framed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 7.7.2011. 20. As per the stand taken by the plaintiffs, after conclusion of the evidence of the parties, the case remained on Board for arguments for about long eight years and thereafter, the present application has been filed on 29.11.2025. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Limited and another, (2022) 16 SCC 1 and prayed that as per para 71.2 of the judgment, the amendment, as proposed in the present case, is required to be allowed. Para 71.2 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “71.2 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 6 Rule 17 CPC.” 8 2026:HHC:30477 22. The perusal of the record shows that the preliminary paras, which, the defendants proposed to insert by adding para 2A has been mentioned in para-3 of the plaint and contents of the plaint have been admitted by the defendants. Meaning thereby, whatsoever they want to add by way of preliminary paras- 2A and 4A, by way of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, was in their knowledge, right from the inception of the lis. 23. Moreover, no reasons have been assigned by the defendants to move the application, at the belated stage, when, the suit was fixed for arguments, since 1.8.2017. The application is totally silent, as to why, the application was not moved after the commencement of the trial or at the earliest available opportunity. 24. Para-3 of the application is reproduced as under: “That the aforesaid amendments are necessary and bonafide to determine the real controversy between the parties. In case the application is allowed by this learned Court the plaintiff party shall not be caused any prejudice. It is, therefore, prayed that the application for proposed amendment may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice and fair play.” 9 2026:HHC:30477 25. The proposed amendment by inserting paras 2A and 4A is reproduced as under: “2A That in earlier suit number 85/1 of 2002 suit land was denoted in plaint as Khasra number 35/1 and 35/2 total 04 biswa. The cause of action in that case was more particularly November 2001. The permission order dated 18-12-2009 i.e. withdrawal under order 23(3) was of 04 biswa suit land but in the present case 68/1 of 2010 the suit land is also 35/1 and 35/2 has been changed total suit land 05 biswa without any explanation. Under the circumstances the present suit has been filed contrary to the aforesaid permission of Ld. Court which is illegal, wrong, redundant and same has become infructuous. The present suit 68/1 of 2010 be read and treated new second suit with fresh/new cause of action and aforesaid permission order required to be declared nullity in law which is not binding on defendant. 4A That suit is bad under order 2 rule 2 C.P.C. The claim setup by the plaintiff in present suit number 68/1 of 2010 would be raised by the plaintiff in previous suit number 87/1 of 2002 pertaining to Khasra no. 41 joint land of both the parties as that of Khasra no. 35 in this case. The aforesaid both suits of 85/1 and 87/1 simultaneously filed within one month during the period of March/April 2002. In both suits joint land of both the parties Khasra number 35 and 41 was put under trial wherein, case number 87/1 of 2002 was dismissed during the year 2006. In the present suit 68/1 of 2010, suit land 35/1 and 35/2 total 05 biswa changed the suit land of 04 biswa in earlier suit 85/1 has been shown as 35/1 Sehan 01 biswa and 35/2 house building. The plaintiff concealed the true facts in the 10 2026:HHC:30477 present suit that Sehan 35/1 is part of Khasra no. 41 situated on wall raised from Khasra erected/rusting number 41 and the said 01 biswa Sehan of the house building 35/2 in front of which this Sehan is situated near about 4-5 feet on this rusting wall of Khasra number 41. It is clear that Sehan 01 biswa is part of the Khasra number 41 and the suit land as mentioned in the present case 68/1 of 2010. Particularly Khasra no. 35/1 is wrong illegal and not part of the Khasra number 35. The detail of Khasra number 41 already given above in para no. 4 of preliminary objection in written statement. Under the facts stated above suit is liable to be dismissed under order 2 rule 2 C.P.C.” 25. Learned counsel for the defendants could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court as to how the contents of para-3 of the application can be taken as compliance of the ingredients, as incorporated by the legislature, in its wisdom, by way of proviso to order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 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 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 11 2026:HHC:30477 party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 26. In the absence of any explanation, as to why, this application has been moved at such a belated stage, after about 15 years from the date, when, the lis was instituted, such type of amendments cannot be allowed, as, in the eventuality of allowing such amendments, there would be no end to litigation, as the party, in order to protract the trial, would come up with such type of pleas seeking amendment, which will result in de novo trial. 27. Moreover, the defendants are before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where scope of interference is very limited. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan, 2025 INSC 606”, has elaborately discussed the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 12 2026:HHC:30477 Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.” 29. Even otherwise, in a recent decision in case “Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Versus B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors., 2026 INSC 434”, the scope of interference has again been 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.” (Self emphasis supplied) 30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, the defendants cannot 13 2026:HHC:30477 derive any benefit from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Limited and another, (2022) 16 SCC 1 (supra). In the absence of any explanation, the prayer, as made in the application, has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial Court. 31. In view of above, this Court is of the view that there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the well reasoned order dated 23.5.2026, passed by the learned trial Court and the present petition is dismissed, as such. 32. Any of the observations, made herein above, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present petition. 33. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) 21.7.2026 Judge Kalpana 14 2026:HHC:30477