2026:HHC:33777 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.  : 531 of 2025 Decided on    : 10.08.2026 Surjeet Singh …Petitioner Versus Dilbag Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Nitin Soni, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner­Surjeet   Singh   has   filed   the   present petition,  under  Article  227 of  the Constitution  of  India, against the order dated 14.07.2025, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No.   1182/2024,   in   Civil   Suit   No.   789/2011,   titled   as “Dilbag Singh Versus Surjeet Singh”. 2. By way of order dated 14.07.2025, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, filed by the petitioner, in the above titled suit. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:33777 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, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:­ 4.1 Plaintiff­Dilbag   Singh   has   filed   a   suit   for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of 1/6th share of land comprising Khata No. 55, Khatoni No. 68, Khasra Nos. 362, 456, 460, 479, 482, 678, 455 and 459, area 3­88­18 hectares and is sole owner of the house consisting three bed­rooms, one store, one kitchen, one bathroom, two toilets and foundation situated over Khasra No. 479 along with path as shown in the site plan attached and 2/7th share in land comprising Khata No. 49, Khatoni No. 71, Khasra No. 483, area 00­04­66 hectares, as per jamabandi   for   the   year   2001­2002   and   2006­2007,   in Mohal Baryal Behar, Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P. and  gift  deed  dated  06.12.2007  by  defendant No.  2,  in favour of defendant No. 1, is illegal, unauthorised and not binding   on   the   rights   of   the   plaintiff   along   with   the consequential relief of symbolic or factual possession and 3 2026:HHC:33777 for   permanent   prohibitory   injunction,   restraining   the defendants from blocking the path of the house of plaintiff, as shown, in the site plan, in any manner. 4.2 The said suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the subject matter of the lis is the Hindu undivided family property, as the plaintiff and defendants are the members of joint Hindu family and the property was recorded in the name of defendant No. 2, being Karta of the family and this land is ancestral and purchased from the   income   of   the   family. As   such,   according   to   the plaintiff,   defendant   No.   2   has   no   right   to   alienate   or transfer   the   same   to   defendant   No.   1   alone,   to   the exclusion of the plaintiff, who has contributed much, then the defendant’s for maintaining and improving the subject matter of the lis. 4.3 It is the further case of the plaintiff that he is the owner as share holder in land Khata No. 50, Khatoni No. 72, Khasra Nos. 368, 463, 477 and 478 area 00­30­68 hectares, and defendant No. 2 served upon him a notice, dated   17.05.1995,   admitting   himself,   plaintiff   and defendant No. 1 to be joint Hindu family and governed by Hindu Law and forced the plaintiff to pay the debt and also 4 2026:HHC:33777 to transfer the land to him and his wife being Karta of the family,   on   which,   the   plaintiff   paid   the   debt   and   also transferred the said land in the name of defendant No. 2 and his wife Raj Kumari. 4.4 According to the plaintiff, he was permitted to construct his separate house over Khasra No. 479, which he constructed in the year 1998, by spending an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/­   out   of   his   own   pocket   and   thereafter developed the courtyard and path upto the main road and since then, he is residing in the house and using the suit land, as share holder being member of joint Hindu family. 4.5 On the basis of above facts, the plaintiff has pleaded   that   gift   deed   dated   06.12.2007,   executed   by defendant No. 2, in favour of defendant No. 1, is illegal and unauthorized and not binding upon his right. 4.6 On   the   basis   of   above   facts,   a   prayer   for decreeing the suit has been made. 5. The suit has been contested by the defendants, by   taking   preliminary   objections   that   the   suit   is   not maintainable, plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct, the plaintiff has got no cause of action and the suit is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties. 5 2026:HHC:33777 5.1 On merits, the suit has been contested on the ground that defendant No. 2 has purchased the suit land and the same is not ancestral property. 6. Plaintiff   filed   the   replication,   denying   the preliminary objections, as well as, the contents of written statement, by virtue of which, suit has been contested. 7. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed the issues on 26.07.2013. 8. On 15.06.2021, the defendant No. 1 has filed an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, read with Section   151   of   CPC   for   amendment   of   the   written statement, to  bring on record, the registered Will dated 21.10.2014, executed by late Sh. Rumal Singh, in favour of defendant No. 1. Said Rumal Singh is defendant No. 2, in the lis. 9. The  said   application  has  been  moved  on  the ground   that   defendant   No.   2,   during   his   lifetime   has executed   a   registered   Will   on   21.10.2014,   in   favour   of defendant No. 1. Subject matter of the Will, is the subject matter of the lis. It is his futher case that Rumal Singh has executed a gift deed, during his life time, in favour of defendant No. 1. Now, the defendant intends to take the 6 2026:HHC:33777 plea of ownership of suit property inherited by Will also. As such, he has sought the following amendment, in his written statement (in para 3, in line 5, after the word ‘legal’: “In case the gift deed dated 06.12.2017 is not proved or fails, then in the alternative the defendant No. 1 is owner of   the   suit   property,   earlier   owned   and   possessed   by Rumal Singh by virtue of registered Will dated 21.10.2014 in favour of defendant No. 1. Late Sh. Rumal Singh has executed a registered Will dated 21.10.2014 in favour of defendant No. 1 by his free mind voluntarily of his all moveable and immovable property including the property in suit and defendant is entitled for declaration that he is owner in possession of suit property.” 10. It is the further case of defendant No. 1 that Rumal   Singh   defendant   No.   2   has   expired   during   the pendency of the suit. As such, the defence, on the basis of Will could not be taken, in the written statement, during the   life   time   of   Sh. Rumal   Singh. As   such,   proposed amendment is necessary to decide the title of the property. 11. The   application   has   been   contested   by   the plaintiff by filing the reply, in which, a plea has been taken that Sh. Rumal Singh has never executed any Will and Will dated 21.10.2014, is result of fraud, misrepresentation of facts and undue influence.  It is further case of the plaintiff that Rumal Singh expired on 21.06.2017 and after that the case was taken up for hearing on numerous dates, but, the defendants have not tried to amend the written statement 7 2026:HHC:33777 and   when   last   opportunity   to   lead   evidence   was   given, then, the present application was filed, just to delay the proceedings. 12. The said application has been considered by the learned trial Court and vide order dated 14.07.2025, the application has been dismissed. 13. The said order has been challenged before this Court, by way of present petition. 14. As per the record, the Civil Suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 27.09.2011.   When the learned trial Court had issued the notices to the defendants, the written statement has been filed by the defendants on 19.01.2012. Issues were framed on 26.07.2013.   When the case was listed for PWs, then, an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been filed by the plaintiff, which was dismissed on 28.11.2016. 15. The said order has been assailed by plaintiff Dilbag Singh, before this  Court, by way of CMPMO No. 24 of   2017,   which   was   allowed   on   15.03.2017   and   the application for amendment was allowed, subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/­.   Thereafter, the amended written statement has been filed. 8 2026:HHC:33777 16. Thereafter,   the   learned   trial   Court   has   again framed  the issues  on  14.09.2018.    The  evidence  of  the plaintiff was closed on 16.10.2019, and thereafter, the case was listed for DWs. 17. Thereafter,   the   plaintiff   moved   an   application under   Order   1   Rule   10   CPC,   for   deletion   of   name   of defendant No. 2 Rumal Singh, on account of his death. The name of defendant No. 2, was ordered to be deleted, vide order dated 01.09.2024. 18. Thereafter, the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, was moved, which has been dismissed, by the learned trial Court. 19. The said order has been assailed by defendant Surjeet Singh, before this Court. 20. Admittedly, the said application has been filed, after the commencement of the trial, in the above titled suit and there is no averment with regard to the compliance of the proviso, added to the provisions under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The   provision   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 9 2026:HHC:33777 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.” 21. Much   stress,   has   been   given   by   the   learned counsel for defendant Surjeet Singh, on the point that the Will   executed   in   his   favour   by   Rumal   Singh   cannot   be relied   upon   by   him,   during   the   lifetime   of   testator   and according to Mr. Nitin Soni, Advocate, appearing for the defendant, after the death of Rumal Singh, occasion had arisen for moving the application for amendment of the written   statement. The   said   arguments   are   devoid   of merits, as defendant No. 2, Sh. Rumal Singh, who is not the   stranger,   but,   father   of   the   parties   to   the   lis,   had expired on 21.06.2017 and the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been filed on 15.06.2021, almost after four years, that too, without any explanation for moving the application so late, what to talk about due diligence in moving the application. 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “K.  Valarmathi  & Ors. Versus Kumaresan, 2025 INSC 606” has elaborately discussed the scope of interference, under Article 227 of 10 2026:HHC:33777 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.” 23. 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 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.” 11 2026:HHC:33777 24. Moreover, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot re­assess or review the material, which was taken into consideration, by the learned trial Court. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided,   by   the   decision   of   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court,   in Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh versus Natwarlal  Shamji Gada and 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 227of 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 Bhatia3, wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court held as under: “11 ……The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227of 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 Company4, 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 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.” 12 2026:HHC:33777 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.” (Self emphasis supplied) 25. If the facts and circumstances of the present case,   are   seen   in   the   light   of   the   decision   of   Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Life Insurance Corporation of India versus   Sanjeev   Builders   Pvt.   Limited   and   another, (2022) 16 SCC 1,, then the order passed by the learned trial  Court  does not require  any  interference. Relevant 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 later part of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.” 26. In   view   of   the   above,   in   the   absence   of   any explanation, as to why the application, has not been moved immediately after the death of Rumal Singh, father of the parties to the lis, this Court is of the view that the order passed   by   learned   trial   Court   does   not   require   any interference. Consequently,   the   present   petition   is dismissed. 27. Any   of   the   observations,   made   hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the 13 2026:HHC:33777 merits, of the case pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, as these observations are confined, only, to the disposal of the present petition. 28. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. (Virender Singh) 10th August, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)