2026:HHC:7945 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR No. 47 of 2025 Date of decision : 17.03.2026. Ravi Shankar ...Petitioner. Versus Deepak Aggarwal & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate, respondent No.1. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present petition has arisen from the order, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. dated 26.03.2025, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 readwith Section 151 CPC, filed by the respondent/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act for ejectment of the petitioner/defendant from shops, situated at Mohal Ujjain, Tehsil and District 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Kangra. It was further prayed that the respondent/ plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of rent against the petitioner/defendant amounting to Rs. 45,000/-. 3. It was averred in the plaint that the present petitioner is the tenant of present respondent and there has been a rent agreement dated 30.04.2009 between the parties for renting out three shops. The respondent/plaintiff is residing at Kotkhai, District Shimla. It was further averred that on account of illness of his father, the plaintiff/respondent has decided to settle down in Ujjain, therefore, he filed the suit for ejectment of the petitioner/defendant from the suit premises. 4. The suit was contested by the present petitioner by raising various objections, such as, locus-standi, acquiescence, maintainability and valuation etc. On merits, the tenancy, as alleged by the respondent/plaintiff, was denied. It was further denied that there is no arrear of rent due towards respondent/plaintiff. All the allegations, as leveled in the plaint, were refuted and the defendant sought dismissal of the plaint out rightly. -3- 5. The plaintiff filed composite application on 17.10.2023 under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of permission to amend the plaint seeking leave of the Court to produce document i.e. Location Plan mark ‘X’ regarding demised shops. It was further averred in the application that the amendments as sought though were required to be taken at the time of filing the suit but could not be earlier taken by the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, Sh. Sanjay Soni, who was pursuing the suit, as he was mentally unsound due to his family problems and now the aforesaid counsel has been changed and the material particulars are required to be incorporated in the plaint for the just and proper decision of the case in hand. 6. The application was contested by the petitioner/ defendant and it was averred that the case was instituted way back in the year 2016 as defendant No.2 had appeared on 08.11.2016 and the issues were framed on 28.05.2018. It was further stated that thereafter the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff on 24.08.2018 and thereafter on 21.11.2018, 05.12.2018 and on 07.12.2018, when -4- application of the respondent/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed, which came to be allowed on 02.05.2019 subject to costs of Rs. 500/-. Further, the case was regularly fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff on 06.12.2019, 02.05.2020, 01.07.2020, 20.08.2020, 06.10.2020, 03.12.2020, 06.03.2021, 23.04.2021 and 06.08.2021. Again the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff on 11.04.2022, 12.07.2022 being last opportunity and on 01.10.2022 and 13.02.2023 being the last opportunity. Thereafter, on 31.03.2023, 03.07.2023 and 17.10.2023 for the evidence of the plaintiff and thereafter, the present application was filed. 7. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 26.03.2025 allowed the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 8. The petitioner/defendant feeling aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court. 9. It is contended by Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and the learned trial Court has not passed a speaking order. He submits that a composite -5- application filed on behalf of the respondent/ plaintiff, whereby prayer for amendment and for placing on record location plan mark ‘X’ was also sought to be placed on record under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. He has submitted that the plaintiff has not been able to make out a case for amendment of the plaint, as the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC prescribe a method and procedure on account of which, the amendment can be sought. He has submitted that in the present case, due diligence has neither been shown in the pleadings nor the learned trial Court has given any reasoning qua the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of impugned order, it is clear that the learned trial Court has not touched the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and on that count, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, has supported the order passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration the entire factual aspect of the matter and has rightly allowed the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 -6- CPC. Therefore, no interference is required in the present proceedings. 11. The exposition of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monika Pandit Mahale & others, (2020) 11, SCC 549, reads as under:- “2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the High Court Pandit Malhari Mahale v. Monika Pandit Mahale, by which the High Court dismissed the writ petition. 3. A suit for partition was filed by the respondents i.e. wife and children of the appellant. In the suit, evidence started and thereafter an application for amendment of plaint was filed by plaintiff No.3. The amendment was objected by the defendant (appellant herein). However, the learned Civil Judge by order dated 09.03.2016 allowed the application against which the writ petition was filed which was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that evidence had already begun and in view of Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the amendment could not have been considered unless the Court return a finding that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. From the evidence on record, it does appear that evidence had begun and thereafter amendment application was filed. Without their being any finding by -7- the Court as contemplated by Order VI Rule 16 proviso, the Court ought not to have allowed the amendment. 7. In the present case, the Civil Judge has not returned any finding that the Court is satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha, this Court observed in para 19 as under: “19. It is primal duty of the Court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court’s jurisdiction in a case of this nature is limited. Thus unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.” 8. There being no finding by the Court that the Court is satisfied in spite of due diligence, the party could not introduce amendment before commencement of the trial, the order of the Trial Judge is unsustainable. The High Court has not adverted to the above aspect of the matter. In view of aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court as well as of the Civil Judge, the amendment application stands dismissed.” 12. The said principle of law has also been followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO No. 356 of 2022, titled as, Sarbjit Singh vs. Harbhajan Kaur, decided on 3.11.2022 wherein, it was held as under:- -8- “12. This Court is of the considered view that the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code as they stand today, though do confer the power to a Court at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, but, before this power so vested in the Court is exercised by it, it has to test as to whether the party seeking such amendment, despite ‘due diligence’, could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial which was now being intended to be incorporated by way of amendment. 16. Therefore, in the absence of any pleading of due diligence in the application and further in the absence of due diligence otherwise being reflected form the averments which were made in the application, the prayer made for amendment of written statement was per se barred and could not have been allowed and therefore, the rejection of the same by learned trial Court cannot be faulted with. Though, this Curt is not oblivious to the fact that the application of the petitioner has not been rejected by learned trial Court on the reasoning given hereinabove, however, as the application otherwise was neither maintainable nor it could have been allowed, therefore, dismissal of the same by learned trial Court, may be by assigning some different reasons, calls for no interference.” 13. Coupled with the exposition of law, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads as follows:- -9- “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.” 14. Perusal of Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 clearly stipulates 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 commencement of the trial. Perusal of the order, as passed by the learned trial Court reveals that the said factual aspect of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has neither been dealt with nor discussed by the learned trial Court. 15. The learned trial Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has also not dealt with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC since the plaintiff filed a composite application under Order 6 Rule -10- 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. Further perusal of impugned order reveals that the prayer of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC has neither been discussed nor decided. 16. In result, in view of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order is ordered to be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court to decide the application afresh in accordance with law by giving opportunities to both the parties to plead and prove their case in accordance with law. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 22.4.2026. 18. Needless to say that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition and the same has no bearing on the merits of the main Civil Suit. 19. The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Romesh Verma) Judge 17th March, 2026. (kck)