Himachal Pradesh High Court
Puneet Kumar vs Sanjay Kumar & Others on 6 August, 2026
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2026:HHC:33181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 552 of 2025
Decided on: 6.8.2026
.
Puneet Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus
Sanjay Kumar & others
...Respondents
_____________________________ ______________
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
___________________________________________________
rt
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhilaksh Grover,
Mr.Kirpal Singh Thakur and
Mr. Pawan Gautam,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Suryabhan Singh,
Advocate vice Mr. Atharv
Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No. 1.
Name of respondent No. 2
stands deleted.
None for respondent No. 3.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
Petitioner Puneet Kumar has filed the present
petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
against the order dated 25.8.2025, passed by the Court
of learned Civil Judge, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
2 2026:HHC:33181
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No.
74 of 2011, titled as, ‘Sanjay Kumar versus Puneet
Kumar & others‘.
.
2. By way of order dated 25.8.2025, the learned
trial Court has dismissed the application for amendment
of the written statement, filed under Order 6 Rule 17
CPC, read with Section 151 CPC.
of
3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are
referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were
rt
referred to, by the learned trial Court.
4. Necessary facts, as borne out from the plaint,
annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as
under:
Plaintiff Sanjay Kumar has filed the suit for
declaration against the defendants, to the effect, that
plaintiff and proforma defendant, by virtue of registered
Will dated 5.3.2011, registered as reference No.
208/2011 and registration No. 40/2011 in the office of
Sub-Registrar, Fatehpur are joint owner in possession
with the defendants to the extent of 1/4 th share of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
3 2026:HHC:33181land, described in the head note of the plaint
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’).
5. The said suit was contested by the defendants by
.
filing written statement. Thereafter, the issues were
framed and the plaintiff was directed to adduce evidence.
After closure of evidence, when, the case was listed for
DWs, then, defendants No. 1 and 2 filed the application,
of
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
6. By way of application, filed under Order 6 Rule
rt
17 CPC, defendants No. 1 and 2 sought indulgence of
the learned trial Court to amend the written statement
and in para-3 of the written statement, after words
“deceased Prakash Chand” and before “Suit deserves
dismissal”, the following lines have been sought to be
added:
“That the plaintiff has categorically stated in the present
paragraph that the deceased had executed the alleged
Will while being in a sound and disposing state of mindand health. However, in contradiction to this claim, the
plaintiff, while deposing as DW-1 in the cross-suit titled
Puneet vs. Sanjay, C.S. 30 of 2012, admitted that the
deceased was a patient of asthma. By acknowledging that
the deceased was suffering from asthma, the plaintiff has,
in effect, supported the version of Defendant Nos. 1 and::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
4 2026:HHC:331812, thereby further reinforcing the contention that the Will
in question is forged and fabricated.”
7. The said amendment, according to the
defendants, necessitated, on the ground, that the
.
plaintiff, while appearing in the witness box as DW-1, in
Civil Suit No. 30 of 2012, titled as, ‘Puneet Kumar & anr.
vs. Sanjay Kumar & others’, which was pending before
the learned trial Court, has deposed that Prakash Chand
of
was, in fact, a patient of Asthma. The said deposition
was allegedly recorded on 21.2.2025, whereas, the
rt
written statement, in the present case, has been filed on
23.9.2011. As such, a prayer has been made to add the
para, as reproduced above, in the written statement. The
said amendment is also stated to be essential for proper
adjudication of the real controversy, involved in the
present case.
8. Lastly, it has been pleaded that if the
amendment, as prayed for, is not allowed, then,
defendants No. 1 and 2 will suffer irreparable loss, which
cannot be compensated in terms of money.
9. This application has been contested by the
plaintiff by taking preliminary objections that the
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
5 2026:HHC:33181
application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment
of the written statement has already been dismissed by
this Court and the same is repetition of the earlier one
.
and has been filed solely to delay the proceedings.
Defendants No. 1 and 2 are also stated to be in the habit
of filing such application to protract the litigation.
10. The plaintiff has also highlighted the fact that
of
during the course of evidence of defendants, the present
application is the 4th application. The application is also
rt
stated to be not maintainable. The written statement is
stated to have been filed in the year 2011. Thereafter,
the issues were framed.
11. According to the plaintiff, after closure of
evidence of the plaintiff, defendants have examined more
than 9 witnesses.
12. The application has also been contested on the
ground that defendant had also filed application, under
Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC for production of copy of
statement of Sanjay Kumar, recorded in case titled as
‘Puneet Kumar versus Sanjay Kumar‘, which has already
been dismissed by the learned trial Court, on 16.6.2025.
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
6 2026:HHC:33181
According to him, by way of present application, the
same material has been sought to be introduced, in the
pleadings. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss
.
the application.
13. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed rejoinder,
denying the preliminary objections, re-asserting the
stand, as taken in the application.
of
14. As stated above, the learned trial Court has
dismissed the application, vide order dated 25.8.2025
rt
and the said order has been assailed before this Court.
15. Heard.
16. The proposed amendment is stated to be based
upon the deposition made by the plaintiff, while
appearing as DW-1, in another Civil Suit No. 30 of 2012,
titled as, ‘Puneet Kumar & anr. versus Sanjay Kumar
and others’. It seems that the statement allegedly made
by the plaintiff, in the earlier suit, is being incorporated
in the written statement, whereas, in the written
statement filed by defendants No. 1 and 2, this fact has
already been incorporated, in para-3 of the written
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:33181
statement. Relevant portion of the written statement is
reproduced as under:
“It is also incorrect that the plaintiff and the performa
.
defendant ever served the deceased or that he was happy
with their services. It is specifically denied that the
alleged Will was ever executed by the deceased. Besides
this the deceased was suffering from Asthma and was notin a fit condition physically and mentally to execute any
document. The alleged Will is full of suspicious
circumstances specifically when the decesed died on theof
next day of the alleged execution of the alleged Will i.e.
6.3.2011 and was thus not in a fit condition to execute
the alleged Will. In fact the alleged Will has been
rt
manipulated to grab the property of deceased in
connivance with witnesses who are closely related toplaintiff and performa defendant. Besides this there is no
local witness of the village of deceased Prakash Chand.
Suit deserves dismissal.”
17. Learned counsel appearing for defendants No. 1
and 2 could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this
Court as to how a fact, which has already been
incorporated in the written statement, requires any
amendment, that too, on the basis of the deposition,
made by the plaintiff, in some other suit.
18. In this case, the prayer, so made by defendants
No. 1 and 2, has been opposed by the plaintiff, on the
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
8 2026:HHC:33181
ground, that the application is nothing, but to protract
the trial, and this fact has already been taken into
consideration by the learned trial Court, when,
.
contentions of the plaintiff have been taken into
consideration, about the fact that issues were framed on
13.1.2012 and the plaintiff has closed his evidence on
19.1.2025. Defendants had availed 16 opportunities and
of
examined 10 witnesses. Thereafter, the application in
question was filed.
19. The
rt application is totally silent about the
reasons, why the application for amendment has not
been filed, prior to the commencement of the trial.
Moreover, deposition made by the witnesses is not
required to be incorporated in the pleadings, as the same
defence has already been taken by the defendants No. 1
and 2, as reproduced above.
20. Even otherwise, the defendants are before this
Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
where scope of interference is very limited.
21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “K. Valarmathi & Ors.
Versus Kumaresan”, 2025 INSC 606″ has elaborately
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
9 2026:HHC:33181
discussed the scope of interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. Relevant para 9 of the
judgment, is reproduced, as under:
.
“Essence of the power under Article 227 being
supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the
original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks tosupervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a
statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908. For example, existence of appellateof
remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a
near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227.”
22.
rt
In a recent decision in “Nandi Infrastructure
Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Versus B. Gurappa
Naidu & Ors.”, 2026 INSC 434″, the scope of interference
has again been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Relevant paragraph 35 of the judgment, is reproduced,
as under:-
“35. In short, the principles laid down in the above
matters is as follows:
a) The power of superintendence under Article 227
is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a)
unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested
in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of
jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to
exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals.
b) It is also well settled that the High Court while
acting under this. Article cannot exercise its power::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
10 2026:HHC:33181as an appellate court or substitute its own
judgment in place of that of the subordinate court
to correct an error, which is not apparent on the
face of the record.
c) The High Court exercising supervisory
.
jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal
to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon
which the determination under challenge is based.
Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error
of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is
justified or can be supported. The High Court is
of
not to substitute its own decision on facts and
conclusion, for that of the inferior court or
rt tribunal.”
23. Moreover, the application is totally silent about
the ingredients of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The provisions
of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are reproduced as under:
“Order VI
Xx xx xx
17.Amendment of pleadings
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow eitherparty 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 theparties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, 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.”
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
11 2026:HHC:33181
24. By way of adding the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17
CPC, the legislative intent is writ large to put a
restriction, on the power of the Court, to allow the
.
application for amendment, as, prior to the
commencement of the trial, it has been intended by the
legislature, that the liberal approach should be adopted,
as word ‘may’ has been used.
of
25. Law with regard to amendment has elaborately
been discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life
rt
Insurance Corporation of India versus Sanjeev Builders
Private Limited and anr., reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1.
Relevant paragraphs 71 to 71.11 of the judgment are
reproduced as under:
71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.1 Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a
subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application
thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadingsfalls far beyond its purview.
The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2
CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.
71.2 All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary
for determining the real question in controversy provided it
does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This
is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word
“shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
71.3 The prayer for amendment is to be allowed
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
12 2026:HHC:33181
71.3.1 if the amendment is required for effective and proper
adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and
71.3.2 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the
other side,
.
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment does not seek to withdraw any
clear admission made by the party which confers a
right on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred
claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a
valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
of
71.4 A prayer for amendment is generally required to be
allowed unless
71.4.1 By the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to
rt
be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would
be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration,
71.4.2 The amendment changes the nature of the suit,
71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is malafide, or
71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid
defence.
71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings,
the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is
ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the
opposite party can be compensated by costs.
71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-
pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a
more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment
should be allowed.
71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an
additional or a new approach without introducing a time
barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be
allowed even after expiry of limitation.
71.8 Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is
intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the
plaint.
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
13 2026:HHC:33181
71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a
ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is
arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and
the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit
.
or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case,
foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment
must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment
sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is
predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint,
ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
71.11. Where the amendment is sought before
commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in
of
its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact
that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the
case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment
does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite
party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it
rt
had secured as a result of an admission by the party
seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be
allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the
court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in
controversy between the parties, the amendment should be
allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors.,
2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)”.
26. Judging the facts and circumstance of the
present case in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in Sanjeev Builder’s Private Limited‘s case
(supra), the learned trial Court has rightly doubted the
bonafide of the defendants in moving the application
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and the same has rightly
been dismissed.
27. In view of above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that there is no occasion for this Court to
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
14 2026:HHC:33181
interfere in the findings recorded by the learned trial
Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The
pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
.
(Virender Singh)
6.8.2026 Judge
Kalpana
of
rt
::: Downloaded on – 09/08/2026 21:38:25 :::CIS
