Allowed¶11

Ashish Gupta v. Neha

Himachal Pradesh HC28 Aug 2025OMP/354/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ashish Gupta vs Neha; CS-36 of 2023; OMP-354 of 2025; amendment of plaint allowed; challenge to termination notice dated 19.05.2023; agreement to sell dated 25.05.2022; prayer D decree of declaration; suit at initial stage; issues not framed; amendment not alien to subject matter; no change in nature of suit; amendment necessary for adjudication; defendant opposed as belated and not bona fide; written statement to amended plaint; Satyen Vaidya, Judge; order dated 28.08.2025; next date 15.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

The proposed amendment (paragraph 5.5 challenging notice dated 19.05.2023 and prayer 'D') is allowed to be incorporated in the plaint; the amended plaint is already on record; written statement to the amended plaint is to be filed on or before the next date; matter listed on 15.10.2025. ¶11

Ashish Gupta Vs Neha — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant/plaintiff's application to amend the plaint (by adding paragraph 5.5 challenging notice dated 19.05.2023 and prayer 'D' seeking a decree of declaration) should be allowed.

¶6

Court's answer

No prejudice shall be caused to the non-applicant/defendant by allowing the amendment as sought by the applicant/plaintiff.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

One reason no prejudice is caused is that the suit is at the initial stage and the issues have not been yet framed.

¶10

Key takeaways

The proposed amendment cannot be said to be alien to the subject matter of the suit and will not change the nature of the suit in any manner.ratio¶10
The original plaint already contains averments showing the applicant/plaintiff's dissent to the defendant's conduct in issuing notice dated 19.05.2023; thus the amendment is necessary for adjudication of the matter in controversy.ratio¶10
The amendment application is allowed and the proposed amendment is permitted to be incorporated in the plaint; the amended plaint is already on record.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order on amendment application OMP-354 of 2025 in CS-36 of 2023 (Ashish Gupta v. Neha), decided on 28.08.2025 by Satyen Vaidya, Judge. The plaintiff's application to amend the plaint — adding paragraph 5.5 challenging the legality and validity of the defendant's notice dated 19.05.2023 terminating the agreement to sell dated 25.05.2022, and adding prayer 'D' seeking a decree of declaration against that notice — was allowed despite the defendant's opposition that the amendment was belated and not bona fide. The court held that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant because (i) the suit was at the initial stage and issues had not yet been framed, (ii) the proposed amendment was not alien to the subject matter of the suit and would not change its nature, and (iii) the original plaint already contained averments showing the plaintiff's dissent to the notice, making the amendment necessary for adjudication of the matter in controversy. The amended plaint was already on record; the defendant was directed to file a written statement to the amended plaint by the next date; the matter was listed on 15.10.2025.

¶1

ASHISH GUPTA Versus NEHA

¶2

CS - 36 of 2023

¶3

28.08.2025 Present : Mr. N.K. Bhalla, Advocate, for the applicant/plaintiff.

¶4

Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for the defendant.

¶5

OMP-354 of 2025

¶6

This application has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff with a prayer to amend the plaint.

¶7

By way of the proposed amendment, the applicant/plaintiff intends to add certain averments by way of paragraph 5.5, inter alia , raising challenge to the legality and validity of notice dated 19.05.2023, issued by the defendant, terminating the agreement to sell dated 25.05.2022. In sequel to the proposed amendment in the body of the plaint, the plaintiff also intends to add prayer ‘D’ in the relief clause, again raising challenge to the aforesaid notice dated 19.05.2023 by seeking decree of declaration to that effect.

¶8

The applicant/plaintiff contends that though the averments with respect to notice dated 19.05.2023 have already been made in the original plaint and the tone & tenor thereof would reveal that the applicant/plaintiff, right from the beginning has raised challenge to the said notice. However, in order to avoid technical objection at later stage, the proposed amendment is sought to be made, which according to the applicant/plaintiff is merely clarificatory.

¶9

The non-applicant/defendant has filed the reply. It is submitted that the belated attempt of the applicant/plaintiff to amend the plaint should not be allowed. According to the non-applicant/defendant, the amendment as sought by the plaintiff is not bona fide .

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the considered view that no prejudice shall be caused to the non-applicant/defendant by allowing the amendment as sought by the applicant/plaintiff for the reasons, firstly, that the suit is at the initial stage and the issues have not been yet framed; secondly, the proposed amendment cannot be said to be alien to the subject matter of the suit. It will not change the nature of the suit in any manner. The original plaint contains averments showing dissent of applicant/plaintiff to the conduct of defendant in issuing notice dated 19.05.2023. Thus, the amendment is necessary for adjudication of the matter in controversy.

¶11

In result, the application is allowed. The amendment as proposed is allowed to be incorporated in the plaint. Amended plaint is already on record.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

CS - 36 of 2023

¶14

Written statement to the amended plaint be filed on or before the next date.

¶15

List on 15.10.2025 .

¶16

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶17

28^th August, 2025 (Pardeep)

Ashish Gupta v. Neha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Gupta v. Neha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahi Ram Arya Vs Uma Devi Sood

Madan Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Subhash Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Kamal Chand Vs the Hpsfcl and Another

Prem Paul Vs the State of Hp and Another

Chander Shekhar Vs the State of Hp and Others