Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
Jawahar Lal – Appellant
Versus
Vinet Sood and Ors. – Respondent
CMPMO No.723/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Tejasvi Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate
Amendments to plaint should be permitted to ensure fair adjudication and prevent multiplicity of proceedings unless they harm the legal rights of any involved parties.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Petition challenging amendment of plaint - The amendment sought was to include obstruction of easementary rights of light and air due to illegal construction - The court found no mala fide intent; hence, amendment facilitated justice and reduced multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 8, 11)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - The Court discussed limitations of its jurisdiction to correct errors without affecting the final findings that stand supported by evidence - No grave dereliction of duty or fundamental violation was found. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested an amendment allowing the plaintiffs to seek relief against potential obstruction of their easement rights due to illegal construction by the petitioner on land previously owned by another defendant. Initial relief was solely related to a pathway.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's decision to allow the amendment was upheld as it did not change the nature of the suit and furthered judicial efficiency.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the amendment sought was appropriate and whether it would cause injustice to any party.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that amendments should generally be allowed to facilitate proper adjudication and avoid multiplicity of litigation unless significant prejudice is demonstrated.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of the initial suit regarding the obstruction of pathway and subsequent amendment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's reasoning for allowing amendments to maintain justice and efficiency. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. clarification of the court's limited supervisory jurisdiction under article 227. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. final decision to dismiss the petition based on the above reasoning. (Para 12) |
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the impuugned order dated 30.11.2022, passed by the learned Coivil Judge, Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, HP in Civil Misc. Application No.1120 of 2022, whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the present rehspondents seeking amendment of plaint has been gallowed by the learned trial Court.
2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended along with the present petition as well as the impugned order.
3. The respondents herein had filed a suit against one Sh. Girish Thakur i.e. proforma respondent No.3, seeking the following relief:-
“I. The defendant himself through his agents, servants, and attorney or successor-in- interest be restrained permanently through a decree of prohibitory injunction from
interfering and blocking the path denoted as E, V, IV and Z on the site plan and also from interfering, dismantling the joint sewerage .
and water connection, comprised in KPhasra No.643 of Khata Khatauni No.8/11 entered in jamabandi for the year 2006-07 of Phati Dhalpur Kothi Maharaja Tehsil and District Kullu, HP as this the only path used by the plaintiffs to approach their house from time of construction of their houses in any manner till the final disposal of the suitf, and;
II. In the alternative suit for mandatory injunction in case the defendant succeeds in dismantling the suit path or raising any sort of construction over the suit path, the defendant may kindly be ordered to bring the suit path in its originual petition at his costs and expense, and;
III. A decree for any other relief to which the plaintiff be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with cost of the suit, in the interest hof justice.”
g3. During the pendency of the suit so filed by the present respondents No.1 and 2, the present petitioner had purchased a house from the original defendant i.e. present proforma respondent No.3. On account of the said purchase so made by the present petitioner, he got himself impleaded as a defendant before the learned trial Court.
The same was done vide Court’s order dated 25.05.2019.
4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the present respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs before the learned trial Court on account of the alleged illegal construction being raised by the present petitioner/defendant No.2, moved an application for .
amendment of the suit so filed by the present respondents/plaintiffs. On account of the amendment so sought the following reliefs were claimed:-
“IIA. That the defendants throfugh their agents, servant, attorney or successor-in-interest be restrained from interfering and blocking the light, airway which right of easement has been mature in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by passage of time, by illegal constructtion without any approval from Town and Country Plranning or MC Kulu, without leaving any set back on the new construction in contravention of law and rules of construction as envisaged under TCP and MC Act over land comprise in Khasra No.643, of Khata Khoatauni No.9/11 entered in the jamabandi for the year 2016-17 of phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu, HP and declaration to the effect that easmentary right of air and light has been matured in favour of plaintiff.
AND suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants for demolition of illegal construction raised one and half storey exi
