IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment in plaint – In terms of Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC, Court may at any stage of proceedings allow either of parties to alter or amend pleadings, in such manner or on such terms, as may be just.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 03.11.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., in CMA No. 728/6 of 2025, in Civil Suit No. 124/25, in terms whereof, application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC), by the respondent/plaintiff, stands allowed and the plaintiff stands permitted to carry out amendment in the plaint.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent as well as mandatory injunction against the defendants, which is pending adjudication. The copy of the original plaint is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1. In terms of the averments made in the plaint, a decree is sought against the defendants for restraining them from causing any interference or any sort of damage to the suit property, description whereof has been given in the plaint, comprised in khata khatauni No. 243min/335min, Khasra No. 1013/346/176/2, total measuring 01-00-00 bigha, situated at mauza Moginand, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. It is a matter of record that no written statement has yet been filed to the plaint.

3. The suit was instituted in the month of October, 2025. Thereafter, in the month of October, 2025 itself, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC, praying for amendment in the plaint. It was averred the application that due to inadvertence and typographical error, the khasra number mentioned in the plaint was khasra No. 1013/346/176, measuring 00-16-00 bighas instead of khasra no. 1018/346/176, measuring 02-19-00 bighas, as per copy of Jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 and and a prayer was accordingly made that the proposed amendment be allowed to be incorporated in the plaint.

4. In terms of the order under challenge, learned Trial Court has allowed the said application by returning the following reasonings:—

“5. Ld. counsel for the respondent has argued that order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that if the amendment could not have brought despite of exercising due diligence then only it could be brought under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and so provision is clear and this application cannot be allowed and placed reliance upon “2010(2) Him L.R.904 Harmehtab Singh Rarewala versus Jagteshwar Prit Singh Rarewala & Ors.”, however, the facts differ as in this case as in that case application has been moved after taking several opportunities to lead the evidence whereas in this case application has been moved at the stage when just defendant was served.

6. He has further placed reliance upon “2016(1) Civil Court Cases (Delhi) M/s Kushal Infraprojects Industrides (India) Ltd. Versus Ram Karan and Ors.” however, the facts differ as the matter was with regard to specific performance of agreement to sell wherein the observation was qua changing the entire proceedings.

7. Coming to the case in hand, before moving further it would be appropriate to look at the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which provides as under:—

“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 all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions 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 is spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

8. Hence, it clearly goes to show that lenient view is taken in case, case is at initial stage and this is the case where no written statement has been filed till date and application has been moved immediately after the service of defendant. Moreover, the error is only with regard to Khasra number which seems to be clerical error, hence,