IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.01 of 2026 Decided on: 02.01.2026 ____________________________________________________ Guddi and others ……….. petitioners Versus Jagdish Chand ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) By way of the present petition, order dated 18.7.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge Baijnath District Kangra H.P. has been assailed whereby two applications filed by the present petitioners/defendants seeking permission to file written statement to the amended plaint has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners. Perused the pleadings, documents appended alongwith the present petition and the impugned order. 3. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to order dated 26.9.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Baijnath, District Kangra H.P. Relevant extract whereof reads as follow on 26.09.2012:- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC alongwith amended plaint. Copies supplied. The learned counsel of the defendants have no objection to allow the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the learned counsel of the plaintiff. After due consideration, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is hereby allowed. None to come up for filing of application and issues be put up on 10.10.2012”. . 4. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is evident that an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed before the learned Trial Court by the plaintiff/respondent seeking amendment of the plaint. The amendment so sought was not opposed by the present petitioners/defendants. In view thereof, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed. From a further perusal of the order dated 26.09.2012, it is evident that after permitting the amendment, which was not objected to by the present petitioners/defendants, the matter was listed for filing of replication and for framing of issues on 10.10.2012. On 10.10.2012, issues in the case at hand were framed, as is evident from the order dated 10.10.2012 placed on record at pages 34 and 35 of the paper book. 5. The suit in the case at hand has been filed seeking a declaration to the effect that the present respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the suit land on account of a sale deed dated 02.11.2002 executed by the present petitioner No.1/defendant No.1. Other than the aforesaid, it has been prayed in the suit, 3 wherefrom the present proceedings arise, that the sale made by the present petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3, i.e. defendants No.2 and 3, qua the suit land in terms of sale deed dated 16.07.2008, be declared wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the present respondent/plaintiff. In the aforesaid backdrop, an appropriate relief qua injunction has also been sought insofar as the suit land is concerned. 6. It has been pointed out that the amendment which was allowed vide order dated 26.09.2012, which was not objected to by the present petitioners/defendants, pertained to the description of the suit land only. Meaning thereby that the description of the suit land as filed in the amended suit was not objected to by the present petitioners/defendants. No other change/amendment was sought vide amendment allowed on 26.09.2012. Subsequent thereto, the suit was decided vide judgment dated 30.04.2015 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. An appropriate appeal was preferred against the same, which was registered before the appellate authority on 01.06.2015. Vide judgment dated 13.12.2018, the aforesaid judgment passed by the trial Court was set aside by the 1st Appellate Court, as according to the 1st Appellate Court, an additional issue was required to be framed. Qua the additional issue so framed, the 1st Appellate Court 4 considered it appropriate to permit the parties to the lis to lead evidence qua the same. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, two applications seeking permission to file written statement in pursuance to the amendment allowed vide order dated 26.09.2012 were filed on 13.06.2025 and 23.06.2025. The reason which weighed with the trial Court in rejecting the two applications filed seeking amendment was the belated stage at which the request was made. 8. In my considered view, the amendment to the plaint allowed vide order dated 26.09.2012 pertains only to the description of the suit land. The description of the suit land is not disputed by the present petitioners/defendants. The same is evident from the fact that they did not object to the amendment so sought, as is evident from the order dated 26.09.2012. The balance content of the plaint, wherein declaration and injunction qua the suit land are being sought, remains unchanged. Once the description of the suit land as amended vide order dated 26.09.2012 is not disputed by the present petitioners/defendants, and the balance content of the plaint seeking declaration and injunction remain the same, which have been duly answered in the written statement, permitting filing of an additional written statement would be a useless empty formality to no avail. 5 9. For the aforesaid reasons and the reasons cited by the trial Court in its impugned judgment dated 26.09.2012, I see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 02nd January,2026 tarun