Rajeev Kumar Vs Hira Lal

The present petition has been filed, laying challenge to the impugned order dated 15.05.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Misc. Application No.73/2025, titled Hira Thakur vs. Rajiv , whereby an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendant, petitioner herein, for amendment of the written statement, has been dismissed.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the petition, pleadings, documents appended thereto and the impugned order.

¶16

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

2

¶18

( 2025:HHC:17170 )

¶19

Admittedly, in the case at hand, an application for amendment of the written statement has been filed after the closure of the defendant’s evidence/petitioner’s evidence, when the matter was listed for arguments.

¶20

In order to deal with the controversy at hand, it would be appropriate to refer to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. The same is being reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶21

“17. 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.

¶22

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commences, 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.”

¶23

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code permits amendment in the pleadings, “at any stage of the proceedings”, but a limitation has been en-grafted by means of proviso to the effect that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced. Reserving the Court jurisdiction to order for permitting the party to amend pleadings on being satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

¶24

The trial would be deemed to have commenced after the framing of issues, once issues are settled and the case is to be listed for recording of evidence, parties seeking amendment are necessarily required to show due diligence and explain circumstances, under which he/she could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

¶25

3

¶26

( 2025:HHC:17170 )

¶27

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, if perused in its entirely, clearly suggest that it consists of two parts, first part is discretionary because the word “may” has been specifically used and it has been left open for the Court to order amendment of the pleadings if necessary for determining the real controversy inter se the parties. However, the second part is imperative, where specific word “shall” has been used and such, enjoins the Court to allow the amendments, which are necessary for the purpose to determine the real controversy between the parties, but then, party seeking amendment has to show despite due diligence, the party was unable to plead such facts at the time of filing of the plaint or written statement.

¶28

In the aforesaid backdrop, from a perusal of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is absolutely clear that plaintiffs/respondents, while moving the said application after commencement of trial, had not pleaded that in spite of due diligence, plaintiffs could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. [see: 2019(4) SCC 332 titled M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma (dead) by legal representatives and others.

¶29

Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term “due diligence” is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial. The term “due diligence”

¶30

4

¶31

( 2025:HHC:17170 )

¶32

determines the scope of a party’s constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit. In this respect, a reference can be made to (2012) 2 SCC 300 titled as J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others .

¶33

This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under 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, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181 ).

¶34

In the case at hand, for the reasons stated in the impugned order and herein above, 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.

¶35

In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶36

June 02, 2025 (KS)

¶37

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

Rajeev Kumar v. Hira Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar v. Hira Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurnam Singh and others Vs L.A.C and Others

NHAI Vs Sunder Nagar Integrated Rural Development Association

Land Acquistion Collector Vs Surinder Kumar and others

Mahantu Ram Vs Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Binhu Alias Vinod Kumar Vs Revti Devi and Others

Joginder Singh Vs Kartar Singh