Dismissed¶30

Laxmi Devi v. Cantonment Board

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Sept 2025CMPMO/456/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; proviso; application after commencement of trial; due diligence; documents on record since 23.04.2014; witness Vikas Kumar; cross-examination; no perversity in trial court order; belated amendment refused; CMPMO dismissed; interim order vacated; Cantonment Board, Subathu; ex parte respondent; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Solan; Himachal Pradesh High Court; 2025:HHC:30064; decided 04.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

After incorporation of the 2002 amendment, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC entails that after commencement of trial an application for amendment of the plaint shall not be allowed until and unless the party demonstrates due diligence before the Court. ¶23

Laxmi Devi Vs Cantonment Board — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.08.2015 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Solan, dismissing the petitioners' application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint after commencement of trial, was liable to be set aside.

¶10

Court's answer

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Due diligence was not demonstrated: the documents referred to by the applicants were on record since 23.04.2014, the statement of witness Vikas Kumar was recorded and arguments addressed, the documents were supplied to the party on the day of evidence and cross-examination was done; hence the averment of late knowledge of the documents was unsustainable.

¶24

Key takeaways

The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are duly borne out from the record of the case; during the hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that these findings were perverse or contrary to the record.ratio¶26
No ground was made out for amendment of the pleadings at the stage when the application was filed; the dismissal by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted and the order of the learned Court below calls for no interference.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) dismissed CMPMO No.456 of 2015 filed by Smt. Laxmi Devi & others against Cantonment Board, Subathu (proceeded ex parte), refusing to interfere with the order dated 17.08.2015 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Solan, dismissing their application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. Held: after the 2002 amendment, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC bars amendment of the plaint after commencement of trial unless the party demonstrates due diligence. The documents sought to be incorporated were on record since 23.04.2014; the statement of witness Vikas Kumar stood recorded, arguments were addressed, the documents were supplied to the party on the day of evidence and cross-examination was conducted, so the plea of late discovery of the documents was unsustainable and due diligence was not made out. The trial court's findings were borne out from the record and no perversity was demonstrated. Petition dismissed; interim order, if any, vacated; pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2025:HHC:30064

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CMPMO No.456 of 2015

¶4

Decided on: 04.09.2025

¶5

Smt. Laxmi Devi & others … Petitioners Versus Cantonment Board, Subathu … Respondent

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : M/s Sanjeev Sood, Rahul Gathania and Het Ram Thakur, Advocates. For the respondent : Proceeded ex parte .

¶9

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶10

By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside of order dated 17.08.2015, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Solan, District Solan, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint stands dismissed.

¶11

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order.

¶12

The application filed by the petitioners under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is appended with this petition as Annexure P-2. All that is mentioned in the application is that the applicants intended to amend the plaint so as to insert the facts which were very important for proper and fair adjudication of the suit. The proposed amendment would not change the nature of suit

¶13

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

¶15

2025:HHC:30064 or cause of action. The amendment earlier could not be earlier, as the applicants/ plaintiffs noticed the documents while preparing the case on the basis of which amendment was being sought. The applicants, therefore, were not in a position to rebut the documents and have no alternative but to amend the pleadings.

¶16

The application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by assigning the following reasons:-

¶17

“ As per Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after the commencement of trial the amendment could be allowed only cannot have been brought on record despite of exercising due diligence. Therefore, as per the proviso it is required to be looked into that the amendment could not have been brought on record despite of exercising due diligence in Salem Advocate Bar Assn v Union of India ((2005) 6 SCC 344) It was observed by Hon'ble Apex court that under the proviso no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial of the case has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial. It is submitted, that after the trip of the cove has commenced, no application of pleading shall be allowed unless the above requirement is satisfied. The amended Order 6 Rule 17 was due to the recommendation of the Law Commission since Order (sic Rule) 17, as it existed prior to the amendment, was invoked by parties interested in delaying the trial. That to shorten the litigation and speed up disposal of suits, amendment was made by the amending Act. 1999, deleting Rule 17 from the Code. This

¶18

¶19

2025:HHC:30064

¶20

evoked much controversy/hesitation all over the country and also leading to boycott of courts and, therefore, by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002, provision has been restored by recognising the power of the court to grant amendment, however, with certain limitation which is contained in the new proviso added to the rule. The details furnished below will go to show as to how the facts of the present case show that the matters which are sought to be raised by way of amendment by the appellants were well within their knowledge on their court case, and manifests the absence of due diligence on the part of the appellants disentitling them to relief." The documents which has been referred by the applicant had been placed on record on 23.4.2014 as evident from order sheet that on said date statement of witness Vikas Kumar was recorded and arguments were done by the Lid counsel on 10.6.2014. In view of which the averments made in the application that he was not having opportunity and had got to know about documents, at this stage, i not sustainable same were supplied to him on the day of evidence and cross examination was also done by Ld counsel of the said witness. Beside that from perusal of order sheet it is evident that issues were framed on 3.3.2009 and basically issue was framed with regard to notice already issued by the defendant to the applicant and of said notice reference of which has been made by the applicant in the application had been served much later than the present suit and said notice had been given freshly to the applicant. Therefore, same cannot be stated to be essential for deciding controversy in the present matter Moreover,

¶21

¶22

2025:HHC:30064 notice had been sent to applicant and same was served upon him and therefore, it cannot be stated that fact was new for him which cannot have come in his knowledge despite of exercising due diligence. Hence, requirement of order 6 rule 17 CPC are not satisfied and application is dismissed as being devoid of merit Application stands disposed of accordingly. It be registered and after due completion be tagged with main case file for record Be listed for arguments for 14.9.2025. ”

¶23

This Court is of the considered view that there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, as it stands after the amendment was incorporated therein in the year 2002 entails in its proviso that after the commencement of the trial, an application for amendment of the plaint shall not be allowed until and unless a party is able to demonstrate due-diligence before the Court.

¶24

This Court is of the considered view that the grounds mentioned in the application were no grounds to seek amendment of the pleadings and that too, belatedly. In fact, learned Trial Court while dismissing the application has categorically held that the documents referred to by the applicants were on record since 23.04.2014. Record also demonstrates that statement of witness Vikas Kumar was recorded and arguments were addressed on 10.06.2024. Learned Trial Court further held that in light of this,

¶25

¶26

2025:HHC:30064 the averment made in the application that the party was not given an opportunity to address its submissions on the documents and the party came to know of the documents at a later stage were not sustainable because records demonstrated that the documents were supplied to the party on the day of evidence and further crossexamination was also done by the learned Counsel concerned. Learned Trial Court further observed in its order that the reasons which were culled out in the application praying for proposed amendment were not such reasons which subsequently came to the notice of the applicants and record demonstrated that these facts were earlier also in the notice of the applicants. On these bases the application has been dismissed. The reasons, as have been mentioned in its order by the learned Trial Court, are duly borne out from the record of the case. During the course of hearing of this petition, it could not be demonstrated by learned Counsel for the petitioners that these findings were perverse or contrary to the record. That being the case, as obviously no ground was made out for amendment of the pleadings at the stage when the application was filed, dismissal thereof by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted with.

¶27

As already observed hereinabove, as this Court is satisfied that no case was made out by the applicants to seek amendment as due-diligence was not demonstrated, obviously the

¶28

¶29

2025:HHC:30064 order passed by the learned Court below calls for no interference.

¶30

In the light of above observation, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶32

September 04, 2025 (Rishi)

Laxmi Devi v. Cantonment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Devi v. Cantonment Board

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

Vikas Chaudhary Vs Monika Rani

Pushpinder Kumar Vs Mangtu

Dhan Raj Gir @Vinod Gir Vs Secretary Revenue and Another

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Rakesh Kumar Banta

Padam Dev Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others