Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1554 (HP)

Gurmeet Singh v. Parmod Sood

2019-10-21

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners who were defendants No.1 and 2 in the Civil Suit No.77-1 of 15/2014, have challenged order dated 19.04.2018, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Civil, Court No.2, Shimla, H.P., vide which the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement, stands dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for represented parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 3. Under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Court can allow amendment of the pleadings, at any stage, provided that the amendment which a party intends to incorporate in the pleadings, in spite of due diligence, could not have incorporated by it earlier. 4. A perusal of the application which was filed for amendment of the written statement by the petitioners demonstrates that the reasons mentioned in the application as to why amendment was necessary, were that due to bonafide mistake, petitioners could not put up the defence of the fact that the land of the plaintiff was not adjoining and adjacent to the land of the defendants. This version of the petitioners was disbelieved by the learned trial Court on the ground that said stand was already taken by the respondents/plaintiff in para 6 of the written statement. 5. Having perused the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement as also order passed by the learned trial Court, this Court is of the view that the findings returned by the learned trial Court are correct findings. It is a matter of record that in para 6 of the written statement, petitioners have taken a definite stand that boundary of the land of petitioners was not abutting the suit land. That being the case, the intent of petitioners was to fill up the lacunae by way of incorporating proposed amendments. 6. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by petitioners for amendment of the written statement as the same did not meet the parameter of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being the case, the intent of petitioners was to fill up the lacunae by way of incorporating proposed amendments. 6. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by petitioners for amendment of the written statement as the same did not meet the parameter of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is reiterated that the provisions of the Code which permit a party to amend its pleadings are not meant to allow a party to fill up the lacunae. Even otherwise, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not to sit as an Appellate Court. Orders passed by learned Court below are to be interfered with only if there is perversity writ large. That not being the case herein, present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.