2026:HHC:15285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.203 of 2025 Decided on: 07 th May, 2026 __________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Aggarwal ....Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar Singla ...Respondent __________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) CMP No.9324 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the copy of reply dated 11.07.2025, filed by the respondent to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, is taken on record. 2. The application stands disposed of. Civil Revision No.203 of 2025 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner, who is 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent before the Rent Controller, has assailed the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Rent Controller-I, Kasauli, Solan, HP, whereby an application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”), seeking permission to amend the reply, came to be rejected. 4. The learned Rent Controller while rejecting the application has considered the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, which mandates that no amendment shall be allowed after commencement of the trial, unless the party demonstrates that despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. A mere assertion that the documents came to the knowledge recently is vague and insufÏcient to satisfy the test of due diligence. Further, earlier also the petitioner had filed an application seeking amendment, which was dismissed by the Court on 23.09.2025. The learned Rent Controller further observed that 3 the petitioner has already pleaded in his reply to the eviction petition that the rent was Rs.300/- per month and the proposed amendment does not add any material fact, essential for proper adjudication of the dispute. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the amendment sought to be incorporated is required for the proper adjudication of real controversy involved in the petition and further, as per the averments made in the application, it was specifically mentioned that some old record pertaining to the tenanted premises in the shape of legal notice dated 01.02.1988 issued by the father of the respondent was found and further the respondent had admitted his signatures on receipts Exhibit R-2 and R-3, which are pertaining to the rent of Rs.300/- per month and the petitioner intends to amend the reply for explaining the contents of the receipts Exhibit R-2 and R-3. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed 4 reply to the petition; and parties to the lis have led their evidence and thereafter the matter has now been listed for arguments. It is also not in dispute that the application seeking amendment, earlier moved by the petitioner, was was rejected by the learned Rent Controller Court on 23.09.2025 and the petitioner has not laid challenge to the said order. 7. The provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, more particularly, Order 6, Rule 17 clearly provides that no application for seeking amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have placed the matter before commencement of trial. 8. In the present case, if the application seeking amendment is perused, the petitioner has only stated that he had recently found some old record pertaining to the 5 tenanted premises, but he has not disclosed when the same was found. Once the averments in the application are vague inasmuch as it has not been specifically pleaded that the petitioner despite exercise of due diligence could not incorporate in reply the plea now taken. Further, once the application seeking amendment earlier moved was rejected on 23.09.2025, which order has not been challenged, the order under challenge does not require any interference while exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 9. The learned Rent Controller has exercised the jurisdiction vested with it inasmuch as taking note of the fact that the assertion to the effect that the documents came to knowledge recently is vague and insufÏcient to satisfy the test of due diligence, this Court finds no illegality having been committed by the learned Rent Controller and as such the order under challenge does not require any interference by this Court. 6 10. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of. 07 th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge