ORDER : 1. Both these petitions are being decided by a common order as identical questions of facts and law are involved. 2. Respondent herein has filed a Civil Suit No. 90-K/1 of 2007 against the petitioners herein, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. Petitioners have also filed their counterclaim which is also being adjudicated along with the above noted civil suit. 3. The dispute in the above noted suit and counterclaim is with respect to estate of late Shri Gita Prakash Verma. Petitioners and respondent have put up their respective claim and counterclaim seeking rights over the estate of Shri Geeta Prakash Verma to the exclusion of other. 4. Respondent herein/plaintiff has already led her evidence and the case was fixed for the evidence of petitioners. At that stage, petitioners moved two separate application, though identical in nature, before the learned trial Court, whereby the written statement and counterclaim filed by them were sought to be amended under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The amendment sought was by addition of averments in para-3 of the counter claim and para-6 of the written statements in following terms:- “The complete adoption ceremony took place in presence of the biological parents Shri Rama Nand Sharma and Smt. Bimla Sharma, of counter claimant No.2 Shri Kartik, who was handed over by them (Goad Dena) to counter claimant No.1 Smt. Gaitri Devi and Late Shri Geeta Prakash, who accepted the counter claimant No.2 as their son, after taking physical custody (Goad Lena) of the child Kartik being counter claimant No.2. The ceremony was witnessed by the family members present, which was duly performed by Prohit Shri Hari Nand Sharma. After the ceremony counter claimant No.2 is being recognized as son of late Shri Geeta Prakash and Smt. Gaitri Devi for all intends and purposes. After the ceremony counter claimant No.2 Kartik remained with Shri Geeta Prakash and Counter Claimant No.2 Smt. Giatri Devi, as their only son. In all the official records the name of counter claimant No.2 Shri Kartik has been entered as son of Shri Geeta Prakash.” 5. After the ceremony counter claimant No.2 Kartik remained with Shri Geeta Prakash and Counter Claimant No.2 Smt. Giatri Devi, as their only son. In all the official records the name of counter claimant No.2 Shri Kartik has been entered as son of Shri Geeta Prakash.” 5. The original averments in para-6 of the written statements were as under: “.......It is admitted that defendant No.2 was born to real sister of defendant No.1, however, immediately on his birth, late Shri Geeta Prakash and the replying defendant No.2 adopted him according to Hindu customs and rites and ceremony for the same was duly performed according to Hindu customs and rites.” 6. The original averments in para-3 of the counterclaim were as under: “.......In year 1994 late Sh. Gita Prakash and counterclaimant No.1 adopted counter claimant No.2 according to Hindu rites and custom.” 7. The application for amendment in counterclaim was registered as CMA no. 146-K/6 of 2022 and application for amendment in written statement was registered as CMA No. 147/K/6 of 2022. Learned trial Court dismissed both the applications vide separate orders dated 25.06.2022 on the same grounds. Hence, these petitions. 8. I have heard Mr. Harsh Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, for the respondent and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the plea regarding adoption of petitioner No.2 by late Shri Geeta Prakash Verma and petitioner No.1 was originally incorporated in the written statement and counterclaim. The amendment was sought only with a purpose to explain, clarify and detail the factum and mode of adoption with a purpose to obviate any objection regarding insufficiency of plea. 10. On the other hand, learned senior counsel representing the respondent has contended that plea seeking amendment to written statement and counterclaim was not bonafide. The suit is pending since 2007. Respondent/plaintiff has already led her evidence. The petitioners had failed to plead and reveal the reason for not seeking amendment before commencement of trial. The allowance of amendment at this stage would have consequences of relegating the parties to denovo trial of the case as the respondent/plaintiff will have right to file replication in the suit and written statement in the counterclaim. The necessity of leading further evidence may also arise. He further contended that the only motive of petitioners is to delay the trial of case. 11. The necessity of leading further evidence may also arise. He further contended that the only motive of petitioners is to delay the trial of case. 11. Perusal of impugned orders reveals that the petitioners have not been allowed to amend their written statement and counterclaim, firstly, on the ground that the petitioners had neither pleaded in the application nor otherwise shown that they were precluded from seeking amendment before commencement of trial despite exercise of due diligence and secondly, the amendment was not necessary for adjudication of the case as the plea of adoption had already been raised by the petitioners in their written statement as also in the counterclaim. 12. The scope of power of this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is restrictive and well defined. This Court in exercise of aforesaid jurisdiction will not sit as Court of appeal to reappreciate and reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. The jurisdiction is to be exercised only to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse and violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. Recently, in Grament Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position in this behalf in following manner:- “8. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 9. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001)8 SCC 97 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as 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. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 13. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 13. Keeping in view the restrictive jurisdiction of this court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the impugned orders cannot be interfered with. Learned trial Court has rightly held that the applications for amendment framed by the petitioners were not inconsonance with the requirements of Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial of the case began with framing of issues long back. No reason has been assigned as to what prevented the petitioners from amending the pleadings before commencement of trial. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to plead and show that despite due diligence they were unable to amend their pleadings before commencement of trial. 14. The necessity of amendment has also been rightly negated by the learned trial Court. The plea of adoption has already been raised by petitioners in their original pleadings. The plea of petitioners that the amendment has been necessitated to obviate the objections as to the insufficiency of pleadings is hypothetical and cannot be sustained. It is settled proposition of law that the evidence need not be pleaded. The fact once pleaded can be proved by way of relevant and admissible evidence. 15. Further, the respondent/plaintiff has already led her evidence. The petitioners/defendants have failed to bring on record any material to show the nature and form of questions put to plaintiff's witnesses in cross-examination, with respect to factum of adoption of petitioner No.2. The conduct of petitioners does not appear to be bonafide in seeking the amendment to their pleadings. The amendment if allowed will possibly allow the petitioner to fill up the lacuna left in the case. 16. In the light of above discussion, there is no merit in both the petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. 17. All pending applications also stand disposed of.