Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral):

The present petition arises out of the order passed by learnged Senior Sub Judge, Kasauli, District Solan dated 7.11.2025, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been allowed.

The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants to the effect that the plaintiff is co-owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 353/489, Khasra No. 2325/1745, 2327/1745, 2328/1745, Kitas 3 measuring 3-15 bighas, situated at Mauza Kasauli Up Mahal Panwa, Hadbast No. 99, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, as the plaintiff has not executed the alleged Gift Deed No. 649/2022 dated 25.11.2022 in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of the alleged GPA PNo. 100/2022 dated 17.9.2022. The alleged GPA No. 100/2022 dated 17.9.2022 and Gift Deed No. 649/2022 dated 25.11.2022 are wrong, illegal, null and void and is not binding upon the rig hts, title or interest of the plaintiff and the Mutation No. 61 dateod 22.12.2022 sanctioned on the basis of above wrong and illega l Gift Deed No. 649 of 2022 is also wrong, illegal and null and void. Further a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suoit property and also from making alienation, creating charge aCnd changing nature of the suit land during the pendency of the suit has been sought.

The defendants filed the written statement on 17.10.2023. Immediately after the filing of the written statement, the iplaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for the amendment of the plaint by incorporating certain amendments in the body of the plaint. The said application was vehemently contested by the present petitioners by filing the reply and vehemently opposed the same. It was averred in the reply that they intend to withdraw the admission, which is not permissible. The proposed amendment is an afterthought and an attempt to change the nature of the case. Further it has been averred in the reply to the application that the proposed amendment have the effect of changing the nature of the case, therefore, the application deserves dismissal.

The learned Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 7.11.2025 allowed the application subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the defenda nts.

Feeling aggrieved the defendanots have approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It is contended by Mr. Navneet Kumar Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitionoers that the impugned order whereby the amendment applicaCtion filed by the plaintiff has been allowed by the learned Trial Court may be quashed and set aside. He further submits that by means of this application the plaintiff intends to change the nature of the plaint.

On the other hand Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned Senior Counsel submits that the suit is at the initial stage and the trial has not yet commenced, therefore, the impugned order is sustainable and the same is liable to be affirmed keeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

The defendants have approached this Court primarily on the ground that certain admissions as made by the plaintiff inP the plaint is by means of the present amendment. The plaintiff intends to withdraw the same, which is not permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case and in case the s aid amendment is allowed, the same shall change the structuore of the plaint and the same shall create great prejudice to the defendants. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC reads as follows:

“Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceeding