JUDGMENT : By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 23.08.2017, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Recong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P., in a miscellaneous application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in Civil Suit No.11-R/1 of 1999/2014, titled as Jumla Jamindaran Village Pangi & others Versus Jumla Jamindaran Village Telangi & others, by the private defendants therein, vide which, said application filed for amendment of the written statement was allowed by the learned Court below. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- A Civil Suit stands filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs have customary rights over the suit land and the order to the contrary passed by Settlement Collector is bad in law and liable to be set aside and the defendants have no right over the suit land. 3. Record demonstrates that earlier a suit was filed in the year 1984 by the plaintiffs and decreed on 26.06.1987. In appeal, the learned District Judge remanded the case to the learned Trial Court on the question of jurisdiction and the court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Kinnaur at Recong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P., vide judgment dated 30.08.1994 held the suit to be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court and the plaint was returned for its proper presentation. Thereafter, the suit was filed in the Court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur, H.P., which was decreed on 03.10.2001. The defendants filed an appeal, i.e. RFA No.450 of 2001 before this Court, which appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 30.05.2014 and the matter was remanded back to the learned District Judge for decision afresh after impleading the State of Himachal Praesh as a defendant. The suit thereafter stood transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kinnaur, on account of the change of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Courts. Thereafter, the State of Himachal Pradesh stood impleaded as a party defendant and written statement to the suit was filed by the newly added defendant, which is dated 24.09.2014. The suit thereafter stood transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kinnaur, on account of the change of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Courts. Thereafter, the State of Himachal Pradesh stood impleaded as a party defendant and written statement to the suit was filed by the newly added defendant, which is dated 24.09.2014. An application was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the original defendants, seeking amendment in the written statement to the following effect:- “a. That in preliminary objections add “new para 5” and further add words “That the suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly time barred since the plaintiffs are challenging the order of settlement Collector decided on 02.09.1983 in the suit being filed on 23rd day of October, 1999, hence same is liable to be dismissed on this score only.” b. In para 3 after the last word alleged add words “there is a passage having constructed by cutting rocks through Kacha Dhank, which have been used since time immemorial for to and fro to the suit land by khewatdarans of Village Telangi for exercising their customary rights.” 4. It was mentioned in the application that on account of inadvertence at the time of drafting the written statement, defendants could not put forth their plea of accessibility of the suit land through a path passing through ‘Kacha Dhank’, which stood constructed by cutting of rocks and which was in use for to and from the suit land by Khewatdarans of village Talangi for exercising customary rights over the suit land since time immemorial. It was further pleaded in the application that the challenge to the order of the Settlement Collector by way of a suit filed by the plaintiffs was time barred as the order stood passed by the Settlement Collector on 02.09.1983, whereas the suit stood filed on 23.10.1999, therefore, plea of limitation was sought to be taken. On these pleas, a prayer was made by the defendants for permission to amend the written statement. This application is dated 25.09.2014. 5. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs, inter alia, on the ground that the original suit was filed in the year 1984 and decreed on 26.06.1987 and therefore, the same was not time barred. On these pleas, a prayer was made by the defendants for permission to amend the written statement. This application is dated 25.09.2014. 5. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs, inter alia, on the ground that the original suit was filed in the year 1984 and decreed on 26.06.1987 and therefore, the same was not time barred. It stood explained in para-1 of the reply as to how the suit was within limitation qua the order passed by the Settlement Collector was there. With regard to the other amendments sought by the applicants, the same were resisted, inter alia, on the ground that there was no cogent explanation as to why said stand was not taken by the applicants earlier at the time of filing the written statement or within some reasonable time thereafter and as per the non-applicants, the intent of the applicants was to linger on with the litigation by seeking amendment on incorrect or false facts. 6. By way of the impugned order, the application stood allowed by the learned Court below. The reasons assigned by the learned Court below while allowing the application, inter alia, were that the rigors of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure after amendment were not applicable to the case as the suit was filed before the amendment was carried out in the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It further held that the amendment prayed was in the written statement and the rigors applicable while dealing with the amendments to a plaint were not applicable while dealing with an application, praying for amendment in the written statement where a liberal approach could be taken by the Court. It further held that the amendments which are essential to determine the real controversy, notwithstanding that there was negligence or omission on the part of the parties, should be permitted so that the parties are not forced to take recourse to the legal proceedings again and again. Learned Court below also held that no delay would be caused if proposed amendments were allowed as the State which was added as a party to the suit pursuant to the directions passed by the High Court had filed its written statement and besides this, the proposed amendments were also essential for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties. Learned Court below also held that no delay would be caused if proposed amendments were allowed as the State which was added as a party to the suit pursuant to the directions passed by the High Court had filed its written statement and besides this, the proposed amendments were also essential for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties. By assigning said reasons, the application stood allowed by the learned Court below subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the order stands assailed by the plaintiffs by way of this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order passed by the Learned Court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Court has erred in not appreciating that in the application filed praying for amendment in the written statement, due diligence was not shown and the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be permitted to be invoked by a party to fill up the lacunae. He has further argued that the learned Court erred in not appreciating that the Civil Suit was initially filed in the year 1984, to which written statement stood filed by the defendants and yet the amendments sought after almost three decades, stood allowed by the learned Court below without dwelling on this aspect of the matter as to why the same were either not incorporated in the main written statement or were not incorporated may be by way of amendment within some reasonable time, as it is not the case of the defendants that the cause they intended to introduce by way of amendment was a subsequent cause which arose after the filing of the Civil Suit or the written statement. He has further submitted that the impugned order is an unreasoned order. On these basis, a prayer has been made by the learned counsel for setting aside the impugned order. 9. He has further submitted that the impugned order is an unreasoned order. On these basis, a prayer has been made by the learned counsel for setting aside the impugned order. 9. Defending the order, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents has argued that there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Court below, for the reason that one of the amendment which is relatable to the issue of limitation being a matter of law and fact, can be allowed to be raised by a party at any stage and the other amendments sought were also only clarificatory in nature if read harmoniously with the written statement earlier filed to the original suit. He has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has correctly held that amendments which go to the root of the controversy, should be allowed and the same cannot be rejected on the ground of negligence of a party because the intent of the Court is to impart justice between the parties before it and if facts are placed before the Court which are necessary for the adjudication of the lis, may be by way of amendments, then same cannot be brushed aside on the ground of delay etc. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that it was rightly held by the learned Trial Court that the parameters for allowing the amendments in the written statement are not as rigorous as they are to amend the plaint. As per him, as the amendments sought in the written statement otherwise also do not change the nature of the defence taken by the defendants in the earlier filed written statement, therefore also, there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in exercise of its power of superintendence, ordinarily this Court is not to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court below in case the view which has been taken by the learned Court below is one of the possible views on the basis of material before it and it is only in the cases of perversity that the Court interferes. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the application. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. 11. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the application. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. 11. It is not in dispute that the suit is an old one and the written statement which stood filed by the defendants to the same, copy thereof is appended with the present petition as Annexure P-2, was also filed somewhere in the month of April, 2000. However, it is also a matter of record that the matter stood remanded back for fresh adjudication by the High Court after setting aside decree and judgment with the direction that the State of Himachal Pradesh be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit. After the State was impleaded as a party defendant and opportunity was given to the State to file a written statement, it filed its written statement to the plaint in the month of September, 2014. The application which stood filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for amendment in the written statement is also dated 25.09.2014. This demonstrates that there was not a considerable delay in filing of the said application as taken from the date, when the written statement to the plaint was filed by one of the parties to the Civil Suit. The prayer which stood made in the application was to allow the applicants to take up the plea of limitation by way of a preliminary objection and to add the factum of existence of a passage which stood constructed by cutting rocks through ‘Kacha Dhank’ by carrying out necessary amendments in para-3 of the written statement. The issue of limitation being a mixed question of law and facts can be allowed to be raised by a party at any stage if the Court is convinced that adjudication on the same is necessary to arrive at a fair decision and in this view of the matter, the prayer to this effect being allowed by the learned Court below, cannot be faulted with as the same goes to the core of the dispute between the parties. Coming to the other amendment sought by way of the application, as mentioned above, it was to introduce the factum of a passage having been constructed by cutting rocks to ‘Kacha Dhank’, which as per the defendants was being used since time immemorial to have access to the suit land by Khewatdarans of village Talangi for exercising their customary right. A perusal of the original written statement earlier filed by the defendants, demonstrates that they have mentioned therein that the defendants were having customary rights over the suit land and they have refuted the contention of the plaintiffs that it were the plaintiffs who were only having the customary rights over the suit land and not the defendants. In this view of the matter, this Court finds merit in the contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the amendments allowed did not change the nature of the defence and was only explanatory in nature. Even otherwise, the amendments allowed do not prejudice the plaintiffs as they get opportunity to rebut the amendments by way of replication and onus to prove the grounds taken in the amendments which now stand incorporated in the written statement, but natural, is upon the defendants and incorporation of said pleas in the written statement does not means that the said stand of the defendants has been accepted by the Court. 12. As far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of the issues of due diligence etc., all that this Court can say is that the reasons which have been given by the learned Court below, do take care of all the issues, because the findings returned by the learned Court below while allowing the application, inter alia, are to the effect that the amendments essential to determine the real controversy should be allowed notwithstanding negligence/omission on the part of a particular party. This Court concurs with the findings so returned by the learned Court below in the peculiar facts of this case taking into consideration the factum of the original Civil Suit being filed before the proviso was added to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. This Court concurs with the findings so returned by the learned Court below in the peculiar facts of this case taking into consideration the factum of the original Civil Suit being filed before the proviso was added to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. This Court also concurs with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents that in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily this Court should not interfere with the orders passed by the learned Court below unless the same suffers from perversity. In this particular case, on the basis of material before it, the view which has been taken by the learned Court below is one of the views which should have been taken and this Court does not intends to interfere with the same. 14. In view of the reasoning assigned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed by upholding the order passed by the learned Court below. 15. Taking into consideration the fact that the Civil Suit is quite an old one, it is ordered that an endeavour shall be made by the learned Trial Court to decide the same within a period of six months, by directing the parties to cooperate with the learned Court below in the earlier adjudication of the same. 16. It is clarified that the suit shall be decided by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings before it and any observations made in this order should not be construed as any adjudication viz-a-viz the rights of either of the parties because the observations which have been made by this Court in this order are only for the purpose of the adjudication of the present petition. It is further clarified that the respondents herein who are not party to the main Civil Suit, stood impleaded only for the purpose of adjudication of this petition and the suit shall be tried intra the contesting parties who were before the learned Trial Court at the time of the passing of the impugned order. 17. The contesting parties through learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below, on 20.09.2021. Registry of this Court is directed to forthwith returned back with the record of the case. 17. The contesting parties through learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below, on 20.09.2021. Registry of this Court is directed to forthwith returned back with the record of the case. Pending miscellaneous applications, including for being impleading as party respondents, stand disposed of by holding that now no order is required to be passed on the same. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.