CMPMO No. : 367 of 2026 v. Bharat Bhushan

Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner­Sheela Thakur has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 12.06.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No. 676/2026 in Civil Suit No. 49 of 2025, titled as “Sheela Thakur Vs Bharat Bhushan”.

#2. By way of order dated 12.06.2026, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order 6 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Rule 17 of CPC, filed by the petitioner, in the above titled suit.

#3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.

#4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:­

4.1 Plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, restraining him from encroaching and unlawful interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land bearing Khewat No. 24, Khatauni No. 38, Khasra No. 265/119, measuring 00­01­89, situated in Village Durgapur, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). She has also sought the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant for removal of encroachment, illegal and unauthorized construction of RCC/PCC, retaining wall, over the suit land.

4.2 The said suit has been filed on the ground that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and defendant is owner in possession of the land bearing 3 Khewat No. 23/19, Khatauni No. 37/34, Khasra No. 264/119, measuring 00­01­85, situated at Village Durgapur, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, H.P.

4.3 The plaintiff has inherited the property, which is the subject matter of the lis, as well as, which is in possession of defendant, from her father. Thereafter, the plaintiff had sold the property bearing Khasra No. 264/119 to late Sh. Puran Chand (father of defendant), in the year

#2003. The defendant has constructed his house over Khasra No. 264/119. The plaintiff has provided path to the defendant for his usage and is also in existence till date, which is mentioned as Khasra No. 267/119 in the Tatima also and the same adjoins at Khasra No. 265/119, 264/119 & 266/119.

4.4. After the death of his father the behaviour of the defendant has changed towards the plaintiff and he started interference over the suit land.

4.5 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to decree the suit.

#5. This suit has been contested by the defendant, by taking preliminary objections that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands, plaintiff has no locus standi to file 4 the present suit, the suit is not maintainable, plaintiff is guilty of suppression of true and correct facts, suit is barred by limitation and plaintiff has not affixed proper Court fees.

5.1 On merits, it has been admitted that defendant is in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 264/119, as detailed above and he has inherited the suit property from his father. Contents of para 3 have been admitted. However, according to him, he has never interfered in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

#6. In the said suit, the plaintiff has moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, with a prayer to permit her to insert para 7­A, in the pleadings and revise para 16. In addition to this, the consequential relief in prayer clause has been permitted to be incorporated by way of proposed amendment.

#7. The proposed amendment are reproduced as under:­ “(i) insertion of new para 7­A after the para 7: “7­A. That during the course of unlawful construction and interference as already pleaded, the defendant also cut down a mature Devdar tree standing on the suit land. The said tree, visibly depicted in the annexed photographs, was approximately 40 years old and categorized as third­class timber as per the norms of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation. On receiving 5 information and guidance from the Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation regarding the valuation parameters, applicable to timber classification, the plaintiff has assessed the market value of the Devdar tree at Rs. 1,00,606/­. The felling was done illegally and without obtaining any prior approval from the concerned forest authorities, which is mandatory required under law. This unauthorized act has caused financial loss to the plaintiff.” Revised para 16: (ii) “16. That the suit was originally valued at Rs. 65/­ for the reliefs of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction, for which requisite court fee of Rs. 55/­ had been duly affixed. Now, in view of the additional claim for compensation of Rs. 1,00,606/­ regarding unlawful felling of a Devdar tree, the plaintiff has affixed the necessary ad valorem court fee in accordance with the Court Fees Act, 1870. (iii) “To pass a decree for payment of Rs. 1,00,606/­ towards damages for unlawful felling of a Devdar tree, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realization.” Addition of consequential relief in prayer clause:

#8. The said amendment is stated to be essential for the just adjudication of the case. It has also been pleaded that lis is at a preliminary stage, as issues have not yet been framed.

#9. The said application has been contested by the defendant, by denying the prayer, as made, in the application.

#10. The learned trial Court has dismissed the said application; mainly on the ground that the application, for 6 proposed amendment, has not been moved, before the commencement of the trial.

#11. The provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, are reproduced, as under: “17. Amendment of pleadings. ­ 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 read 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 in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

#12. The learned counsel for the defendant could not point out any order from which it can be inferred that the trial has commenced, whereas, in the application itself, it has been pleaded that issues have not been framed yet and case is at the initial stage. The proposed amendment has been sought to be incorporated on the ground that at the time of filing the suit, the plaintiff could not ascertain the value and damage caused, due to the felling of devdar tree, by the defendant and thereafter, he got assessed the value of the same and thus, the necessity to amend the plaint has arisen. 7

#13. When, the case is at the initial stage, then, the proposed amendment to the considered opinion of this Court is nothing, but based upon the subsequent events, qua obtaining the value of the devdar tree.

#14. The learned trial Court, in the present case has fallen in error to giving undue weightage to the proviso added to the provisions, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, whereas, the trial, in the present case, has not yet been commenced.

#15. The merits of the proposed amendment have been discussed by the learned trial Court, which are beyond the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, as such, it can be said that learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while discussing the merits of the proposed amendment and also failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, in disallowing the application for amendment, which has been moved before the commencement of the trial. As such, the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, does not stand in the judicial scrutiny by this Court.

#16. Consequently, the order dated 12.06.2026, passed by learned trial Court in CMA No. 676/2026, in 8 Civil Suit No. 49 of 2025, titled as “Sheela Thakur Versus Bharat Bhushan”, is set aside and the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is ordered to be allowed. Consequently, the applicant/plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint.

#17. The parties to the lis are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 24.08.2026, at 10:00 am.

#18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. 07th August, 2026 (Pramod Kumar) (Virender Singh) Judge