JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 18.12.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.II, Shimla, H.P., in Civil Suit No.9006218/14, titled as Smt. Chander Kanta vs. Smt. Praveen Thakur, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the contesting respondent herein was allowed after impleadment of the petitioner as defendant No.2 in the Civil Suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no doubt the respondent/ plaintiff after the impleadment of the petitioner as a party defendant had a right to file an amended plaint, but then the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been specific as to what the proposed amendments were, why they were necessitated after the impleadment of the petitioner as a defendant and the application ought to have been accompanied by an amended plaint. In the absence of these necessary ingredients learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court, because the proposed amendments were duly spelled out in the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which stands allowed by a reasoned order passed by the learned Trial Court and now in terms of the directions passed by the Court, the respondent/plaintiff shall be filing an amended plaint to which written statement can be filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the documents appended with the petition including the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the order impugned, this Court is of the considered view that there is some merit in the grievance raised by the petitioner by way of this petition. 5. 5. Order 1, Rule 10 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where a defendant is added, the plaint shall unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and if the Court thinks fit, also on the original defendant. 6. Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings and it provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and also such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 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 due­diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 7. Order 6, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as under:­ “18. Failure to amend after order­ If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court.” 8. In the present case, the proviso appended to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not comes into play because here the respondent/plaintiff was having a statutory right to amend the plaint after the impleadment of the petitioner as a party defendant. However, fact of the matter remains that the application which was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent/plaintiff, seeking amendment of the plaint was completely vague in the absence of specific averments therein as to what actually the respondent/plaintiff intended to incorporate in the plaint by way of amendment and where exactly in the plaint the amendments were to be incorporated. Besides this, why these amendments were necessary after the impleadment of the defendant as a party defendant was also not spelled out in the application. In the absence of these necessary ingredients, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. After the impleadment of the petitioner as a party defendant, though the respondent/ plaintiff was having the right to amend the plaint, but then the same was not an un­fattered right. The statutory provision as is provided in Order 1, Rule 10 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure itself states that where a defendant is added the plaint shall unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner “as may be necessary”. But natural, this has to be spelled out in the application which is to be filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to what necessitates the proposed amendments after the impleadment of a party as a defendant. This was clearly lacking in the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the present case. Besides this, as observed hereinabove also, the proposed amendments ought to have been clearly and distinctly spelled out with reference to the place where these amendments were intended to be added in the amended plaint. 10. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, as this Court finds that the impugned has been passed without taking into consideration these necessary ingredients, this petition succeeds. Order dated 18.12.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.II, Shimla, H.P., in Civil Suit No.9006218/14, titled as Smt. Chander Kanta vs. Smt. Praveen Thakur, is set aside, with liberty to the respondent/ petitioner to file a fresh application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the plaint in terms of the observations made in this order. 11. 11. Before parting with the case, this Court deems it necessary to pass a direction that all the Judicial Officers in the State of Himachal Pradesh be sensitized that while dealing with applications filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, be it for the amendment of the plaint or that of the written statement, the ingredients which mandatorily should be there in the application, should be scrutinized by the Courts below and if the same are absent, then appropriate orders should be passed thereupon by the learned Courts below. The applications necessarily should be supported by the affidavit of the party seeking amendment and in the absence of the affidavit the applications should be rejected forthwith. 12. Learned Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh is requested to make a copy of this order available to all the learned District Judges for further circulation to the learned Judicial Officers, so that the order is complied with in letter and spirit. In addition, all the learned Judicial Officers be also further sensitized that except formal applications, no application which is not accompanied by the affidavit of the party concerned and duly attested by the Oath Commissioner or the Notary as the case may be, be taken on record by them and if any application is filed which does not fulfills these conditions, the same be dealt with accordingly. 13. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.