2026:HHC:13544 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 118 of 2026 Date of Decision: 23.4.2026. _______________________________________________________ Madhu Kumar & Anr. …….Petitioners. Versus Smt. Bable Neomi Bhatti … Respondent. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Navnet Kumar Bhalla, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. Romesh Verma , Judge (oral): The present petition arises out of the order passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kasauli, District Solan dated 7.11.2025, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been allowed. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants to the effect that the plaintiff is co- owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 353/489, Khasra No. 2325/1745, 2327/1745, 2328/1745, Kitas 3 measuring 3-15 bighas, situated at Mauza Kasauli Up Mahal Panwa, Hadbast No. 99, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, as the plaintiff has not 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:13544 executed the alleged Gift Deed No. 649/2022 dated 25.11.2022 in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of the alleged GPA No. 100/2022 dated 17.9.2022. The alleged GPA No. 100/2022 dated 17.9.2022 and Gift Deed No. 649/2022 dated 25.11.2022 are wrong, illegal, null and void and is not binding upon the rights, title or interest of the plaintiff and the Mutation No. 61 dated 22.12.2022 sanctioned on the basis of above wrong and illegal Gift Deed No. 649 of 2022 is also wrong, illegal and null and void. Further a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and also from making alienation, creating charge and changing nature of the suit land during the pendency of the suit has been sought. 3. The defendants filed the written statement on 17.10.2023. Immediately after the filing of the written statement, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for the amendment of the plaint by incorporating certain amendments in the body of the plaint. The said application was vehemently contested by the present petitioners by filing the reply and vehemently opposed the same. It was averred in the reply that they intend to withdraw the admission, which is not permissible. The proposed amendment is an afterthought and an attempt to change the nature of the case. Further it has been averred in the reply to the application that the proposed 3 2026:HHC:13544 amendment have the effect of changing the nature of the case, therefore, the application deserves dismissal. 4. The learned Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 7.11.2025 allowed the application subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. 5. Feeling aggrieved the defendants have approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is contended by Mr. Navneet Kumar Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order whereby the amendment application filed by the plaintiff has been allowed by the learned Trial Court may be quashed and set aside. He further submits that by means of this application the plaintiff intends to change the nature of the plaint. 7. On the other hand Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned Senior Counsel submits that the suit is at the initial stage and the trial has not yet commenced, therefore, the impugned order is sustainable and the same is liable to be affirmed keeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 4 2026:HHC:13544 9. The defendants have approached this Court primarily on the ground that certain admissions as made by the plaintiff in the plaint is by means of the present amendment. The plaintiff intends to withdraw the same, which is not permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case and in case the said amendment is allowed, the same shall change the structure of the plaint and the same shall create great prejudice to the defendants. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC reads as follows: “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.” 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that the proposed amendment are clarificatory and explanatory in nature and it does not change the plaint, which was originally filed. He further submits that the defendants are well within their right to rebut the contents of the plaint by filing the amended written statement and by merely incorporating the amendment shall not prove the case of the plaintiff. This Court is of the opinion that the proposed amendment which is intended to be raised in the plaint are explanatory in nature and by merely incorporating the same, the case of the plaintiff will not 5 2026:HHC:13544 be proved. The plaintiff has to prove the case by leading evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant will get an opportunity to rebut the case of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the amendment application. Besides the aforesaid, the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & another (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 524, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: xx xx xx 7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 181 as under:- “xx xx xx Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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. 6 2026:HHC:13544 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.1 The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 12. Thus from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere uder the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice. 13. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. The learned Court below has rightly came to the conclusion that the suit is at the initial stage and no prejudice is going to be caused to the opposite side. The learned Trial Court after referring to the various judgments of the Apex Court has rightly passed the order, whereby amendment of the plaint has been allowed. This Court sees no illegality or infirmity with the impugned order. 7 2026:HHC:13544 15. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, however, the cost which has been imposed by the learned Trial Court is increased from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the petitioner on the next date fixed before the learned Trial Court. 16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma), Judge 23rd April, 2026 (Guleria)