2026:HHC:33770 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 432 of 2026 Decided on : 10.08.2026 Amarjeet Singh …Petitioner Versus Tara Chand & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : None. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner-Amarjeet Singh has ﬁled the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order dated 25.07.2026, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No.586 of 2024, which was ﬁled in Civil Suit No.52 of 2011, titled as ‘Amarjeet Singh versus Tara Chand & Others’. 2. By way of Order dated 25.07.2026, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, ﬁled, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:33770 3. Parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. 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:- 4.1. Plaintiﬀ Amarjeet Singh, had ﬁled a Suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, against the defendants, regarding the land comprising Khewat No.401, Khatauni No.476, Khasra No.701, 703 and 705, Kita-3, land measuring 00-06-18 bigha, situated at Mauza Pandoh, Hadbast No.325, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, is recorded in joint ownership and possession, along with his brothers Gurjeet Singh and Bhupnder Singh, and land bearing Khewat/Khatauni No.400/475, Khasra No.700 and 702, measuring 0-1-8 Bigha, situated in Mauza Pandoh, Tehsil Sadar District Mandi, along with house building situated over it, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). 4.2. According to the plaintiﬀ, defendant No.2, without consent and permission of the plaintiﬀ and behind his back, sold his one third (1/3rd) share, in the suit land including the 3 2026:HHC:33770 share, in the dwelling house, vide registered Sale Deed No.237, dated 25.02.2011 to defendant No.1, who is stranger to the family of the plaintiﬀ. 4.3. The sale deed has been executed secretly and plaintiﬀ was unaware about the sale deed dated 25.05.2011 and he came to know about the same only on 14.04.2011, when, defendant No.1 has tried to enter in the dwelling house of the plaintiﬀ and has attempted to dispossess the plaintiﬀ from the suit land. 4.4. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to restrain the defendants from causing any interference and disturbing the privacy of the plaintiﬀ’s house constructed over the suit land. 5. When put to notice, the defendants have contested the suit, by ﬁling written statement, in which, preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel, the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, and the plaintiﬀ has not approached the Court with clean hands, have been taken. 6. On merits, it has been admitted that defendant No.2, has sold the land of his share to defendant No.1, vide 4 2026:HHC:33770 sale deed dated 25.02.2011. Other contents have also been controverted and contested. 7. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed the issued and when, the case was listed for Dws, the plaintiﬀ has moved application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), on the ground that defendant No.2, without prior consent and permission of the plaintiﬀ and behind his back, sold his 1/3rd share, in the dwelling house, as well as, vacant land vide registered sale deed No.237, dated 25.02.2011, to defendant No.1, who is stranger to the family of the plaintiﬀ. The plaintiﬀ was unaware about the sale deed, No.237, dated 25.02.2011, however, he came to know about the sale deed, only on 14.04.2011, when defendant No.1 tried to entered into the dwelling house of the plaintiﬀ and attempted to dispossess him from the suit land. 8. On the basis of the above facts, the plaintiﬀ has sought indulgence of the learned trial Court to amend the plaint, as, according to him, due to inadvertence, oversight and inspite of due diligence, the plaintiﬀ, while ﬁling the suit, could not challenge the Sale Deed No.237, dated 25.02.2011, 5 2026:HHC:33770 being wrong, illegal, null and void, having no binding eﬀect on the rights, title and interest of the plaintiﬀ and as such, the plaintiﬀ want to amend the recital of the plaint as ‘Suit for Declaration to the eﬀect that the sale deed No.237, dated 25.02.2011, is wrong, illegal, null and void, having no binding eﬀect on the right title and interest of the plaintiﬀ and a consequential relief of injunction, under Section 34 to 38 of Speciﬁc Relief Act, instead of ‘Permanent Prohibitory Injunction’ under Section 38 of the Speciﬁc Relief Act. 9. 9. In addition to this, in para 4 of the plaint, the plaintiﬀ wants to add the following lines:- “(i) and as such the sale deed No.237, dated 25.02.2011 be declared wrong, null and void having no binding eﬀect on the right, title and interest of the applicant/plaintiﬀ and similarly the applicant/plaintiﬀ wants to amend the prayer clause of the plaint and wants to insert the following words after the word ‘decreed’ and before the word ‘A decree for’, as under: to the eﬀect that the alleged sale deed No.237, dated 25.01.2011, be declared wrong, illegal, null and void having no binding eﬀect upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiﬀ in any manner.” 10. It is the further case of the plaintiﬀ that the necessary facts regarding the above proposed amendment are already on record, as such, it will neither change the nature of 6 2026:HHC:33770 the suit, nor, cause injustice or prejudice to the case of defendant No.1. 11. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application for amendment of the plaint. 12. This application has been contested by defendant No.1, by ﬁling reply, in which, preliminary objections, that the application is not maintainable, as, the trial in the suit has been commenced and issues have been framed several years back and thereafter, the plaintiﬀ led his evidence, the application is time barred; and by way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiﬀ wants to change the entire nature of the suit land. 13. On merits, the contents of the application has been controverted and denied. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application vide order dated 25.07.2016. 14. Heard. 15. Admittedly, the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been ﬁled, at the stage, when, the trial has already been commenced. Moreover, the reference with regard to the sale deed No. 237 dated 25.02.2011, has also been given in the suit in para 4, which is reproduced, as under:- 7 2026:HHC:33770 “4. That the defendant No.2 without the consent and permission of the plaintiﬀ and behind his back sold his one third (1/3rd share) in the suit land including the share in dewelling house, Vide Registered sale Deed No.237, dated 25.02.2011 to defe1ndant No.1, who is a stranger to the family of the plaintiﬀ and his family members the sale deed has been executed by the defendant No.2 secretly, the plaintiﬀ was unware about the sale Deed No.237, dated 25.05.2011. The plaintiﬀ c a me to know about the alleged sale Deed only on 1 4 .04.2011 , when the defendant No.1 has tried to enter in the dewelling house of the plaintiﬀ and has attempted to dispossess the plaintiﬀ from the suit land the plaintiﬀ has objected and resisted the illegal entry of the defendant No.1. The plaintiﬀ has also lodged a complaint in the Police Post Pandoh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., regarding the illegal attempt made by the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has not been permitted by the plaintiﬀ to enter over the suit land except in due process of law. Since the defendant No.1 is a stranger to the family of the plaintiﬀ and is the resident of for away place, the defendant No.1 has no connection or relation with the plaintiﬀ and his family members. By the entry of the defendant No. 1 in the dewelling house, the privacy of the plaintiﬀ and his family members will be adversely aﬀected, because the plaintiﬀ is residing in the dewelling house situated over the suit land since the life time of his parents along with his wife and children. The defendant No.2 has during the life time of parents shifted to Manali, District Kullu, H.P. After the death of the parents, the defendant No.2 has also inherited 1/3rd share of the suit land, but his 1/3rd share in the suit land, as well as, in the dwelling house remained in the use and occupation of the plaintiﬀ. There are common Gallary and entrance to the dwelling house. By the entry of the stranger1, the privacy of the dwelling house and his family members is likelihood to be threatened, hence the plaintiﬀ is constrained to ﬁle the present suit. (self emphasis supplied) 8 2026:HHC:33770 16. When, the facts were in the knowledge of the plaintiﬀ, right from the inception of the lis, i.e., ﬁling of the suit, then, how the application, which has been ﬁled, on the similar facts, that too, after a gap of about 13 years, can be said to be the application, which have been ﬁled, with a prayer to amend the pleadings, which the plaintiﬀ, despite due diligence, could not ﬁle earlier. 17. Facts were already in the knowledge. The very basis of the suit for injunction is sale deed, which has been executed by defendant No.2, in favour of defendant No.1. 18. The learned trial Court has considered all the material facts and thereafter concluded that the prayer of the plaintiﬀ was not required to be accepted and has rightly been dismissed. 19. Moreover, considering the scope of interference, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the view that the ﬁndings recorded by the learned trial Court do not fall within the deﬁnition of ‘perverse ﬁndings’ or the ﬁndings, which are based upon the fact that the learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. 9 2026:HHC:33770 20. 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 Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.” 21. 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 10 2026:HHC:33770 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) 22. In the application itself, it has been mentioned that the plaintiﬀ came to now about the sale deed No.237, dated 25.02.2011, only on 14.04.2011, as such, the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, would be nothing, but, an attempt to prolong the proceedings, which admittedly, were pending before the learned trial Court, between the parties, for the last more than 15 years. 23. 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 10, 2026( ps ) Judge

AMARJEET SINGH v. TARA CHAND AND OTHERS

Judgment text