1 2026:HHC:33181 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 552 of 2025 Decided on: 6.8.2026 Puneet Kumar … Petitioner Versus Sanjay Kumar & others …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Mr.Kirpal Singh Thakur and Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Suryabhan Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Name of respondent No. 2 stands deleted. None for respondent No. 3. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Puneet Kumar has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 25.8.2025, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. 2 2026:HHC:33181 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No. 74 of 2011, titled as, ‘Sanjay Kumar versus Puneet Kumar & others’. 2. By way of order dated 25.8.2025, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application for amendment of the written statement, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Necessary facts, as borne out from the plaint, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: Plaintiff Sanjay Kumar has filed the suit for declaration against the defendants, to the effect, that plaintiff and proforma defendant, by virtue of registered Will dated 5.3.2011, registered as reference No. 208/2011 and registration No. 40/2011 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Fatehpur are joint owner in possession with the defendants to the extent of 1/4th share of the 3 2026:HHC:33181 land, described in the head note of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). 5. The said suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement. Thereafter, the issues were framed and the plaintiff was directed to adduce evidence. After closure of evidence, when, the case was listed for DWs, then, defendants No. 1 and 2 filed the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 6. By way of application, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, defendants No. 1 and 2 sought indulgence of the learned trial Court to amend the written statement and in para-3 of the written statement, after words “deceased Prakash Chand” and before “Suit deserves dismissal”, the following lines have been sought to be added: "That the plaintiff has categorically stated in the present paragraph that the deceased had executed the alleged Will while being in a sound and disposing state of mind and health. However, in contradiction to this claim, the plaintiff, while deposing as DW-1 in the cross-suit titled Puneet vs. Sanjay, C.S. 30 of 2012, admitted that the deceased was a patient of asthma. By acknowledging that the deceased was suffering from asthma, the plaintiff has, in effect, supported the version of Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 2026:HHC:33181 2, thereby further reinforcing the contention that the Will in question is forged and fabricated." 7. The said amendment, according to the defendants, necessitated, on the ground, that the plaintiff, while appearing in the witness box as DW-1, in Civil Suit No. 30 of 2012, titled as, ‘Puneet Kumar & anr. vs. Sanjay Kumar & others’, which was pending before the learned trial Court, has deposed that Prakash Chand was, in fact, a patient of Asthma. The said deposition was allegedly recorded on 21.2.2025, whereas, the written statement, in the present case, has been filed on 23.9.2011. As such, a prayer has been made to add the para, as reproduced above, in the written statement. The said amendment is also stated to be essential for proper adjudication of the real controversy, involved in the present case. 8. Lastly, it has been pleaded that if the amendment, as prayed for, is not allowed, then, defendants No. 1 and 2 will suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 9. This application has been contested by the plaintiff by taking preliminary objections that the 5 2026:HHC:33181 application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement has already been dismissed by this Court and the same is repetition of the earlier one and has been filed solely to delay the proceedings. Defendants No. 1 and 2 are also stated to be in the habit of filing such application to protract the litigation. 10. The plaintiff has also highlighted the fact that during the course of evidence of defendants, the present application is the 4th application. The application is also stated to be not maintainable. The written statement is stated to have been filed in the year 2011. Thereafter, the issues were framed. 11. According to the plaintiff, after closure of evidence of the plaintiff, defendants have examined more than 9 witnesses. 12. The application has also been contested on the ground that defendant had also filed application, under Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC for production of copy of statement of Sanjay Kumar, recorded in case titled as ‘Puneet Kumar versus Sanjay Kumar’, which has already been dismissed by the learned trial Court, on 16.6.2025. 6 2026:HHC:33181 According to him, by way of present application, the same material has been sought to be introduced, in the pleadings. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 13. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed rejoinder, denying the preliminary objections, re-asserting the stand, as taken in the application. 14. As stated above, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, vide order dated 25.8.2025 and the said order has been assailed before this Court. 15. Heard. 16. The proposed amendment is stated to be based upon the deposition made by the plaintiff, while appearing as DW-1, in another Civil Suit No. 30 of 2012, titled as, ‘Puneet Kumar & anr. versus Sanjay Kumar and others’. It seems that the statement allegedly made by the plaintiff, in the earlier suit, is being incorporated in the written statement, whereas, in the written statement filed by defendants No. 1 and 2, this fact has already been incorporated, in para-3 of the written 7 2026:HHC:33181 statement. Relevant portion of the written statement is reproduced as under: “It is also incorrect that the plaintiff and the performa defendant ever served the deceased or that he was happy with their services. It is specifically denied that the alleged Will was ever executed by the deceased. Besides this the deceased was suffering from Asthma and was not in a fit condition physically and mentally to execute any document. The alleged Will is full of suspicious circumstances specifically when the decesed died on the next day of the alleged execution of the alleged Will i.e. 6.3.2011 and was thus not in a fit condition to execute the alleged Will. In fact the alleged Will has been manipulated to grab the property of deceased in connivance with witnesses who are closely related to plaintiff and performa defendant. Besides this there is no local witness of the village of deceased Prakash Chand. Suit deserves dismissal.” 17. Learned counsel appearing for defendants No. 1 and 2 could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court as to how a fact, which has already been incorporated in the written statement, requires any amendment, that too, on the basis of the deposition, made by the plaintiff, in some other suit. 18. In this case, the prayer, so made by defendants No. 1 and 2, has been opposed by the plaintiff, on the 8 2026:HHC:33181 ground, that the application is nothing, but to protract the trial, and this fact has already been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court, when, contentions of the plaintiff have been taken into consideration, about the fact that issues were framed on 13.1.2012 and the plaintiff has closed his evidence on 19.1.2025. Defendants had availed 16 opportunities and examined 10 witnesses. Thereafter, the application in question was filed. 19. The application is totally silent about the reasons, why the application for amendment has not been filed, prior to the commencement of the trial. Moreover, deposition made by the witnesses is not required to be incorporated in the pleadings, as the same defence has already been taken by the defendants No. 1 and 2, as reproduced above. 20. Even otherwise, the defendants are before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where scope of interference is very limited. 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan”, 2025 INSC 606" has elaborately 9 2026:HHC:33181 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 Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227." 22. In a recent decision in "Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Versus B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors.”, 2026 INSC 434", the scope of interference has again been explained by the 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 10 2026:HHC:33181 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." 23. Moreover, the application is totally silent about the ingredients of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are reproduced as under: “Order VI Xx xx xx 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 party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 11 2026:HHC:33181 24. By way of adding the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the legislative intent is writ large to put a restriction, on the power of the Court, to allow the application for amendment, as, prior to the commencement of the trial, it has been intended by the legislature, that the liberal approach should be adopted, as word ‘may’ has been used. 25. Law with regard to amendment has elaborately been discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and anr., reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1. Relevant paragraphs 71 to 71.11 of the judgment are reproduced as under: 71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: 71.1 Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. 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 VI Rule 17 of the CPC. 71.3 The prayer for amendment is to be allowed 12 2026:HHC:33181 71.3.1 if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and 71.3.2 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) 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 and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4 A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless 71.4.1 By the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, 71.4.2 The amendment changes the nature of the suit, 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is malafide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8 Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 13 2026:HHC:33181 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)”. 26. Judging the facts and circumstance of the present case in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sanjeev Builder’s Private Limited’s case (supra), the learned trial Court has rightly doubted the bonafide of the defendants in moving the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and the same has rightly been dismissed. 27. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no occasion for this Court to 14 2026:HHC:33181 interfere in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) 6.8.2026 Judge Kalpana