2026:HHC:33305 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 91 of 2026 Decided on : 07.08.2026 Thakur Dass & Another …Petitioners Versus Kulwant Singh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Peeyush Chandel & Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anirudh R.H. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 12 Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.13. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order dated 24.11.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No.218/2023 in Civil Suit No.154 of 2023, titled as ‘Kulwant Singh & Others versus Thakur Dass & Others’. 2. By way of Order dated 24.11.2025, learned trial Court has allowed the application, filed, under Order 6 Rule 17 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:33305 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC”), by the plaintiffs, in the above titled case. 3. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under:- 3.1. Respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), had filed a Suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, against the petitioners herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants No.1 and 2’), restraining the defendants from causing interference, raising constructions, occupying best portion, digging the suit land, changing the nature, dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.15/17, Khasra No.72, measuring 8-12 Bighas, Khewat/Khatauni No.14/16, Khasra No.5, 14, 29, 34, 36, 39, 53, 129/54, measuring 32-00 Bighas Khewat/Khatauni No.19/21, Khasra No.8, 15, 52, 141/43, 95, Kita-5, measuring 41-13 Bighas, situated in village Bhallu, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’), as per Jamabandi, for the year 2020-21. 3.2. The said suit has been filed on the ground that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2, along with proforma 3 2026:HHC:33305 defendants, are joint owners-in-possession of the suit land. Defendant No.2, has sold land measuring 1-05 Bighas to defendant No.1 and the sale deed has been registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, on 03.03.2022, but, the mutation has not been attested, nor, possession has been delivered, physically, on the spot. 3.3. Asserting the fact that the suit land is joint between the parties and has not been partitioned, it is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.2 has previously sold his land to proforma defendant No.3 and assured the plaintiffs that he will not sell other land to any person till the final partition of the same and not disturb the possession of other co-sharers till the final partition of the land by meets and bounds. 3.4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that thereafter, plaintiff No.1, has filed an application before Sub Registrar Jhandutta not to attest the mutation of any sale deed of defendant No.2, as the suit land is ancestral one. 3.5. As per the plaintiffs, defendant No.1, is very clever and greedy person, who, in connivance with defendant No.2, is causing interference, in the suit land, forcibly. Defendant 4 2026:HHC:33305 No.1 on 12.03.2022, forcibly entered into the suit land and threatened to raise construction. 4. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to decree the suit. 5. When put to notice, defendants No.1 and 2 have contested the suit by filing written statement, in which, preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, estoppel and the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands, have been taken. 6. On merits, the factum of jointness of the suit land has been disputed by pleading that defendant No.1 is also joint owner-in-possession of the suit land, as, he has purchased 1-05 bigha land from defendant No.1, and possession has been delivered to him. Other contents have also been contested. 7. Plaintiffs filed replication, denying the preliminary objections, as well as the contents of the same. 8. In the said suit, plaintiffs have moved application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer that the following proposed amendment may kindly be permitted to be inserted in the plaint:- “(i) That in the para no.2 in last of the para “The Sale deed dated 03.03.2022 is void and 5 2026:HHC:33305 plaintiffs are not bound by the same” may kindly be allowed to be added. (ii) That after para no.2 of the plaint applicant may allowed to add para no.2A as under:- “That defendant no.2 is real brother of the plaintiff and succeed the suit land from Tihru S/o Shr. Haria. Plaintiffs have preferential rights over the suit land under the provision of section 22 of Hindu Succession act and sale deed executive by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 and 3 are void documents and plaintiff are not bound by the same.” 9. The said amendment is stated to be necessary to decide the case and the proposed amendment, according to the plaintiffs, will not change the nature of the case. 10. The said application, has been contested by defendants No.1 and 2, by filing reply, in which, preliminary objection; that the application is not maintainable, as the plaintiffs have no ground to challenge the legality and validity of the sale deed dated 03.03.2022, has been taken. 11. On merits, the contents of the application have been contested. 12. Learned trial Court has decided the application, vide order dated 24.11.2025. The said order has been assailed, by way of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 2026:HHC:33305 13. As per order dated 24.11.2025, the application for amendment has been filed, when, the case was at the stage of PWs and no PW has been examined yet. It has rightly been pointed out, by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, that the stand, as taken in the proposed amendment, has already been taken, by the plaintiffs, in the replication, filed to the written statement of defendant No.3. 14. Perusal of the record reveals that in the replication to the written statement, filed by defendant No.3, a plea has been taken by the plaintiffs that defendant No.2 was real brother of the plaintiffs and succeed the suit land from Tihru. Plaintiffs have preferential rights over the suit land, under the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, and the sale deed, executed by defendant No.2, in favour of defendants No.1 and 3, is a void document, not binding on the right of the plaintiffs. Similar stand has now been taken in the application, which are para 2-A and addition in para 2 is proposed to be made. 15. Defendants No.1 and 2 are before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of interference has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble 7 2026:HHC:33305 supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. of 2026 arising out of SLP© No.8991 of 2025, titled as Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh versus Natwarlal Shamji Gada & Another, 2026 INSC 416, Relevant paragraph 16 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 16. Yet another aspect that goes to the root of the matter is that the tenants challenged the order passed by the Appellate Bench permitting the amendment by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that in exercise of such jurisdiction, it would not be open for the High Court to review or reassess the material that was taken into consideration by the Court while passing the impugned order. In this regard we may usefully refer to the decision in Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia, wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court held as under: “11 ……The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. In Sadhna Lodh v National Insurance Company, (2003)3 SCC 524, this Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or 8 2026:HHC:33305 tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227.” Thus, the discretion exercised by the Appellate Bench while allowing the amendment was not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when there was no error of jurisdiction nor a statutory bar for permitting the plaint to be amended based on subsequent events.” 16. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1, could not point out the irregularity, which, the learned trial Court, has committed, in allowing the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 17. In the absence of any irregularity, in exercise the jurisdiction, no interference can be made with the Order passed by the learned trial Court, which according to the considered opinion of this Court, has been passed after taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, as well as, the stand taken, in the replication, filed by the plaintiffs to the written statement filed by defendant No.3. 9 2026:HHC:33305 18. In view of the above, no case for interference with the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court is made out. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Virender Singh ) August 07, 2026( ps ) Judge