JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order, dated 02.12.2016, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Shimla, H.P. in CMP No. 125/6/2016 in Civil Suit No. 20/1 of 14/10, vide which, an application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondent No. 1/plaintiff, has been allowed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a suit has been filed by respondent No. 1 herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.17,96,595/- alongwith interest against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment in the plaint to the extent that liability be held joint and several of the defendants to pay the amount due to plaintiff. 3. Vide impugned order, the amendment so sought by the plaintiff-Corporation has been allowed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order and the documents appended with the petition. 5. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the same is a reasoned and speaking order and the learned Court below has assigned reasons as to why the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint found favour with it. Learned Court while allowing the application has returned categorical findings that the proposed amendments were not going to change the nature of the suit and further the same were only clarificatory in nature. It also held that the amendments were necessary. Learned Court further held that the reasons mentioned in the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code, explaining as to why the proposed amendments could not be earlier incorporated in the plaint appeared to be justifiable, especially keeping in view the fact that the amendments were only clarificatory in nature and no prejudice was going to be caused to the defendants, who would be given opportunity to lead evidence. Learned Court also granted cost to the defendants in lieu of allowing the said application. 6. Learned Court also granted cost to the defendants in lieu of allowing the said application. 6. Under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court can permit parties to amend the pleadings at any stage of the case which are necessary, provided the party seeking amendment satisfies the Court that despite due diligence, the proposed amendment could not be earlier incorporated in the pleadings. In this case, said condition has been satisfied by the plaintiff, as is clearly borne out from the impugned order. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings so returned by the learned Trial Court were perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. 7. In exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not to sit as an appellate Court over the orders passed by the learned Courts below, but has to interfere with orders only if the orders either shock the judicial conscious of the Court or are so perverse that in case the same are permitted to remain on record, it would result in great injustice to either party. 8. In the present case, neither it can be said the impugned order is so perverse that it shocks the judicial conscious of the Court nor the said order, if permitted to remain on record, would cause great prejudice to the parties. 9. One more fact which is necessary to be mentioned at this stage is this that by way of the impugned order, the amendment which has been allowed by the learned Trial Court, in fact, affects defendants No. 2 and 3, who stand impleaded as proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 in the present petition. They have not filed any petition against the said order, meaning thereby that they are not aggrieved by the order, which has been passed by the learned Trial Court. In these circumstances, in my considered view, the present petition even otherwise is not maintainable, because the petitioner perhaps does not has any locus standi to assail the order passed by learned Trial Court, as the same does not affects the petitioner. 10. In view of the above discussions, as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.