IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

CMPMO No.441 of 2024

th

Decided on 15 December 2025

Bakhtawar Singh and another

…Petitioners

Versus

Smt. Charno

…Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioners: Mr. Het Ram, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate,

with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this petition, the petitioners have

assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 29.06.2024, in terms whereof, an application filed by the defendants for the amendment of the written statement has

been allowed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that during the pendency of the Civil Suit filed by the present petitioners, an application was filed by the defendants for the amendment of the written statement. This

application is on record as Annexure P-3. It was averred in the application that the suit was pending adjudicatio.n and defendants being aged and being from village background earlier at the time of filing of written statemHent could not explain their entire version to their counsel and when detailed discussion took place with the newly appointed counsel and entire facts were brought to the notice of the counsel the need arose for amending the written statement. On these pleas prayer was madeu for the amendment of the written statement. The proposoed amendments are also culled out in the applicaCtion.

3. The application was resisted by the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the written statement was filed in the month of December, 2022 after the Trial had commenced H and two plaintiff witnesses stood examined. The application did not disclose valid and genuine reason as to why the alleged amendments were not incorporated in the written statement at the first instance.

4. In terms of the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application by returning the following findings:- .

“Admittedly, the applicants have filed the present application for amendment of written statement after commencement of trial i.e. at the stage of PWs and even after, examination of two P.W's. Thus, the applicants have to satisfy the twin considerations as discussed a bove. It is fact that a plea of due diligence is antithetical to the plea of error or negligence. Tohey cannot co-habit and one destroys the other. The submission of the applicants in their amendment application is that the applicant tbeing old person and village background, at the time of filing of written statement to the suit, could not explain/ told the entire version to their counsel and now the details discussion carried out with their newly appointed coounsel by the applicants and those actual facts are to be pleaded in the written statement by way Cof explanation of facts. Once such an admission was made on behalf of applicants, it is clear that there was negligence on their part. Since, there was want of due diligence at the time when the written statement was originally drafted and filed, if so facto, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC would kick in, and the amendment would be barred it is also averred in the application that the present i amendment of the written statement is due to the H subsequent development and discovering of new facts but save and except such averments in the application, the applicants have failed to point out even a single event which has arisen due to subsequent development of the suit or discovery of new facts.

Though it is tried to be argued on behalf of the applicants that since the parameters for amending written statement different from ones for amending the plaint, present application be allowed. In this regard, I would like to point out that this court is not ignorant to the law that amendment in the written statement should be liberally allowed and the parameters for allowing amendment written statement is different but considering the fact that the averments, made in the