( 2026:HHC:36652 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.418 of 2023 Reserved on: 12.08.2026 Decided on: 27.08.2026 Uploaded on : 27.08.2026 Karam Chand and Ors. …Petitioners Versus Lajja Ram and Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms, Srishti Negi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate, for respondents No.4(a) to 4(d) and 13(a) to 13(b). Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 05.06.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.188-NL/6 of 2023, titled as 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) Mansho (since deceased) through LRs. and others versus Chintu Ram and others. 2. By way of order dated 05.06.2023, the learned First Appellate Court has allowed the application, under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, filed by the respondents for amendment of the plaint. The said appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2015, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit RBT. No.186/1 of 2009/2007. 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. Mansho-predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration and possession, against the defendants, on the ground, that the subject matter of the lis is land comprised in Khewat-Khatauni No.85/85/86, bearing Khasra Nos.536, land measuring 19 3 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) bighas, 8 biswas, situated in village Suraj Majra, Labana, Hadbast No.205, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., as per Jamabandi for the year 2000- 01. 4.2. According to the plaintiffs Munshi and Pat Ram were real brothers and were predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs. Pat Ram had three daughters, but he had given his entire land to Mansho-plaintiff. Pat Ram had no male issue and Munshi had two sons, namely Amin Chand and Atma Ram. Amin Chand was married to Mansho-plaintiff. After few days of their marriage, Amin Chand died. Out of the wedlock of Amin Chand and Mansho, no issue had born. Since, Mansho become widow, in her teenage, as such, Atma Ram younger brother of Amin Chand contracted Karewa marriage with Mansho. Out of the said marriage, Lajjya Ram and Dila Ram were born. 4.3. It is their further case that Munshi son of Sadhu, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs, mortgaged his share in favour of Sant Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and share of Amin Chand and Atma Ram was intact and was not mortgaged. Land bearing Khasra No.421 min, measuring 10 bighas was mortgaged, with 4 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) possession with Sant Ram, by Munshi and land bearing Khasra No.421 min, measuring 9 bighas and 8 biswas was shown, under the tenancy of Bhola from the side of Amin Chand and Atma Ram. In this regard, plaintiff relied upon the Jamabandi for the year 1935-36. In nut shell, the plaintiffs sought the following relief:- “That the plaintiff may kindly be declared as owner of the suit land on the grounds mentioned in the plaint with a right for getting the same redeemed. The revenue record after the preparation of Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 which has been wrongly, illegally and without any base and at the back of the plaintiff has been changed abruptly without any order of the Revenue Officer or the Court of competent jurisdiction to change/alter the same abruptly unjustifiably in the year 1960-61 and till, now, and decree for possession being owner may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the same in any manner on the basis of wrong, illegal, null and void revenue record.” 4.4. The suit has been contested by the defendants, on the ground, that Munshi, after solemnizing Karewa marriage with Atma Ram, surrendered the suit land, in favour of Atma Ram and mutation to this effect was attested, as Mutation No.127. She had admitted her husband Atma Ram, as owner in possession of the suit land and never raised any objection to the mutation and 5 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) further change of revenue entries till date. Thereafter, Atma Ram sold the suit land to Dina Nath, Sita Ram, Chhaju, Chintu and Balak Ram, sons of Sant Ram, vide Sale Deed No.620, dated 25.10.1960. They have also taken the alternative plea, that in case, the sale deed is not held to be valid document, they have become their owners in possession of the suit land, by way of adverse possession. 5. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the plaint. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed, by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 20.04.2010: 1). Whether Munshi Singh predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff mortgaged his share in favour of Sant Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, as alleged? OPP. 2). Whether entry of mortgagee has been deleted wrongly, illegally and without any order of Revenue Officer and is wrong, illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP. 3). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Redemption with possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 4). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 5). Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 6). Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 6 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) 7). Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 8). Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees? OPD. 9). Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 10. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 11. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, if so its effect? OPD. 12. Whether Atma Ram sold the suit land to Dina Nath, Sita Ram Chaju Ram, Chintu, Balak Ram sons of Sant Ram vide sale deed No.620, dated 25.10.1960, as alleged? OPD. 13. Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD. 14. Whether Smt. Mansho surrendered the suit land in favour of Atma Ram, if so its effect, as alleged? OPD. 15. Relief. 7. Thereafter, parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. After closure of evidence, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 8. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs have filed the appeal, before the learned Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiffs, moved the application, under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, with a prayer to permit them, add para-6(a). After para-6 of the plaint, which is reproduced, as under:- “6(a). That the plaintiff Smt. Mansho even after her Kareva marriage with Sh. Atma Ram, who was the younger brother of her firt 7 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) husband Sh. Amin Chand, remained owner in possession of the suit land till the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as there was custom in the Gujjar Community, to which the parties belong, as well as, in the local area of Tehsil Nalagarh, which was part of State Punjab 1966 that when widow contracted Kareva marriage with the brother of her former husband, such widow on remarriage will not forfeit her limited estate, inherited from former husband. Dut to such custom prevailing in the Community and local area, Plaintiff Smt. Mansho remained in possession of the suit land as limited owner, representing her former husband’s estate till the passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and thereafter she became absolute owner in possession of the land inherited by her inherited by her from her husband Sh. Amin Chand i.e. ½ share of the suit land. The Mutation No.127, dated 09.06.1960 passing at the back of owner plaintiff Smt. Mansho is wrong, illegal, null and void, having no legal effect on the right, title and interest of plaintiff Smt. Mansho Devi qua ½ share in the suit land and the subsequent revenue record changed on the basis of aforesaid Mutation No.127, is wrong, illegal, null and void. Similarly, the sale deed No.620, dated 3.11.1960, executed by Sh. Atma Ram in favour of Shri Dina Nath, Sita Ram, Chhajju Ram, Jitu and Balak Ram son of Shri Sant Ram of ½ share of suit land is also wrong, illegal, null and void.”. 9. In addition to this, they have also sought the relief to permit them to add para-11. i (a):- “11 “i(a): In the alternative by passing decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are co-owners in possession of ½ share in the suit land, in case the plaintiff(s) is/are not proved to be owners and in possession of the entire suit land, in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants, with costs, in the interest of justice.” 8 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) 10. The said amendment has been sought, on the ground, that they have filed the suit for declaration that the revenue record, with respect to the suit land, which was owned and possessed by Mansho (original plaintiff), has wrongly and illegally changed, in the year 1960-61, during consolidation. 11. According to them, the suit land was inherited by Mansho from her husband Amin Chand and after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Mansho acquired absolute ownership of the suit land and the claim of the defendants is that Mansho, before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, contracted Karewa marriage, with the younger brother of her husband and forfeited her limited estate, in favour of heirs of her husband. 12. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that despite due diligence, could not plead the custom prevailing in the community, as well as, in the local area, about the fact that when, a widow having limited estate, inherited from her husband contracted a Karewa marriage with the brother of her husband, by limited estate acquired from her first husband will not be forfeited. According to them, customs prevailing in the State of Punjab were all 9 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) prevalent and followed, by the local area of Tehsil Nalagarh. 13. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to permit them to amend the plaint. According to them, the proposed amendment is required for deciding the controversy involved, in the present case, between the parties. 14. When, put to notice, this application has been contested, by the defendants, by filing reply, on the ground, that the application has been moved, with malafide intention to prolong the litigation and the application does not fulfill the ingredients of Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC. The application has not been filed, before the commencement of the proceedings and the plaintiffs could not disclose, any due diligence, nor, there is any averment that the plaintiffs were not knowing such custom earlier. 15. It is their further case that there is nothing in the application to demonstrate that any custom is prevailing in Gujjar community. 16. The learned Appellate Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties allowed the 10 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) application, vide order dated 05.06.2023, subject to cost of Rs.15,000/-. 17. The said findings have been assailed, by the defendants, before this Court. 18. The original plaintiff has filed the suit that Munshi and Pat Ram, were real brothers and were predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs. Pat Ram had three daughters, but, he gave his entire land to plaintiff-Mansho. Pat Ram had no male issue, whereas, Munshi had two sons, namely Amin Chand and Atma Ram. Amin Chand was married to Mansho-plaintiff and after a few days of marriage, Amin Chand had died, as such, no issue was born. Mansho become widow in her teenage, Thereafter, she contracted Karewa marriage with the younger brother of Amin Chand. Out of the wedlock between Atma Ram and Mansho, Lajja Ram and Dila Ram were born. Munshi son of Sadhu, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had mortgaged his share in favour of Sant Ram defendants, predecessor-in- interest of the defendants and share of Amin Chand and Atma Ram was intact and was not mortgaged. Land measuring 10 bighas was mortgaged bearing Khasra No.421 min, with Sant Ram by Munshi and 11 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) Khasra No.421 min, measuring 9 bighas 8 biswas was shown under the tenancy of Bhola. 19. As per Mutation No.50, Khasra No.421, measuring 19 bighas, 8 biswas and Khasra No.421 min, 9 bighas 8 biswas, was sanctioned on 08.08.1995. Even, in the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 B.K, Amin Chand and Atma Ram have been shown mortgagors and Sant Ram has been shown, as mortgagee, qua Khasra No.421 and 422. Possession of Sant Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants have been shown, as mortgagee in possession of the suit land. The said contentions of the plaintiffs were not accepted, by the learned trial Court, as such, he has filed the appeal, before the learned Appellate Court and during the pendency of the appeal, application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, has been filed. 20. As per the application, suit land was inherited by Mansho from her husband Amin Chand and after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Mansho acquired absolute ownership of the suit land, whereas, according to the plaintiffs, defendants have claimed that Mansho, before Hindu Succession Act, 1956, contracted Karewa marriage, with the younger brother of 12 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) her husband, as such, Mansho, forfeited her limited estate in favour of her first husband. 21. According to the plaintiffs, inadvertently, in spite of exercise of due diligence, the plaintiffs could not plead custom prevailing in the community of the parties, as well as, in the local area that when, a widow having limited estate inherited from her husband, contracted Karewa marriage, with the brother of deceased husband, her limited estate acquired from previous husband will not be forfeited. 22. As stated above, suit was initially filed by Mansho, who during the pendency of the lis, expired, as such, her legal representatives Lajja Ram and Dila Ram, were ordered to be brought on record. When, the material fact i.e. custom, has not been pleaded, by the Mansho, then, how these facts could have been sought to be included, in the plaint, by way of the proposed amendment, by her successors. 23. Situation would have been otherwise, had this plea been taken by Mansho herself, during her life time. The lis remained pending before the learned trial Court for about eight years and when, the contentions of the 13 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) plaintiffs were not accepted, by the learned trial Court then, in the appeal, the application for amendment has been made, which according to the considered opinion of this Court, is nothing but, would amount to a denovo trial. 24. The proposed amendment is also not based upon the subsequent events, for which, the Court ought to have adopted a liberal attitude, while, allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC. Whatsoever, sought to be amended, was in the knowledge of plaintiff- Mansho, as well as, her LRs, and for a long period of eight years, no attempt has been made, by the plaintiffs to get their plaint amended. 25. The present petition has been filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where the scope of interference is very limited. 26. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan, 2025 INSC 606” has elaborately discussed the scope of interference. 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 14 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.” 27. 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.” 28. In this case, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Revajeetu Builders & Developers versus Narayanaswamy and Sons, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 and Dinesh Goyal versus Suman Agarwal 15 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) (Bindal), reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 2615, with due respect to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above titled case, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, as to how, these decisions are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the application for amendment was moved, not after the commencement of the trial, but conclusion of the trial before the learned trial Court and as such, no benefit could be derived from the above case law. 29. Being guided, by the above decisions, now, this Court would proceed further to determine, as to whether the learned trial Court has rightly exercised, the jurisdiction vested in it or exceeded, its jurisdiction, while allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC. 30. Perusal of the order dated 05.06.2023, demonstrates that the learned Appellate Court has discussed the merits of the proposed amendment, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ass Kaur (deceased) by LRs versus Kartar Singh (dead) by LRs. and others, reported in 2007 (3) Civil Court Cases (S.C), 2007 (3) Supreme Court Cases 342, (S.C), in 16 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the concept of Karewa marriage, amongst Sikh Jaat of Punjab. 31. It seems that the learned Appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that in the proposed amendment, the alleged custom of Gujjar community has been relied upon by the plaintiffs and as such, the case law, which deals with the Sikh Jaat of Punjab is not applicable. The order is totally silent about the fact, as to why the proposed amendment has not been moved, before the commencement of the trial. 32. While, deciding the application, under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, the learned Appellate Court has decided the merits of the case, by holding that Mansho was limited owner of the property and she had contracted Karewa marriage, with second husband Atma Ram. All these facts are beyond the scope of the learned Appellate Court, while, deciding the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC. 33. Interestingly, the learned Appellate Court, in this case has simply reiterated the case law, relied upon, by the respondent in para-15 and allowed the application. The order is totally silent, as to how the case law relied upon by the learned Appellate Court, is applicable in the 17 ( 2026:HHC:36652 ) facts and circumstances of the present case and embargo, as created, by the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, has even not been considered. As such, the findings of the learned Appellate Court, can be said to be suffering from perversity, which are liable to be interfered with, by this Court. 34. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and order dated 05.06.2023, passed by the learned Appellate Court, is set aside and application under order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, is dismissed. 35. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. 36. Any of the observations made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined only to the disposal of the present petition. 37. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) August 27, 2026 Judge (subhash sharma)