Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel dismissed a petition by a defendant challenging a trial court order that permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint in an injunction suit to correct the khasra number describing the suit property. The Court declined to interfere with the amendment order, noting that the correction was confined to the property’s khasra number and the consequential description, and did not introduce any new claim or transform the suit’s character. Justice Goel observed that an amendment “limited and restricted to the change in the number of khasra” cannot be treated as altering the cause of action, since the defendants can respond through their written statement.

The matter arose from a petition filed challenging an order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, whereby an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed permitting amendment of the plaint. The respondent–plaintiff had instituted a civil suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of immovable property situated at Mauza Moginand, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. The suit sought restraint against alleged interference and damage to the suit property.

Also Read: Employer’s Right To Claim Income-Tax Deduction On Delayed PF/ESI Deposits Under Scrutiny Amid Conflicting Rulings: Supreme Court To Settle Issue

Subsequent to institution of the suit and before filing of any written statement, the plaintiff moved an application seeking correction of the khasra number and corresponding land measurement in the plaint, citing inadvertent and typographical error. The original plaint mentioned one khasra number with a smaller land area, whereas the proposed amendment substituted another khasra number with a larger area, based on revenue records.

The trial court allowed the amendment holding that the suit was at an initial stage and the error was clerical. The petitioner contended that the amendment altered the cause of action, expanded the subject property, lacked due diligence, and was unsupported by documents. The respondent opposed the petition asserting that the amendment merely corrected identification of the property and did not change the nature of the suit.

The Court examined the scope of the amendment and the stage at which it was permitted and observed that “it is a matter of record that the Civil Suit originally filed was relating to khasra no. 1013/346/176, which in terms of the order passed by the learned Trial Court has been allowed to be amended to khasra No. 1018/346/176.”

The Court noted that “besides this, no other amendment was allowed by the learned Trial Court and obviously, as a result of this amendment, the description of the land has been changed from 00-16-00 bighas to 02-19-00 bighas.”

While considering the nature of the amendment, the Court recorded that “not even a word has been allowed to be altered by the learned Trial Court in the entire plaint.” It further observed that “thus, the suit remains as it was and there is only a change in the description of the khasra number concerned.”

On the timing of the application, the Court stated that “the application praying for amendment was filed immediately after the filing of the suit and the same was allowed by the learned Trial Court even before the written statement of the defendants was on record.”

Addressing the objection regarding due diligence, the Court observed that “because the suit has not yet reached the stage of the trial, because not even written statement had been filed when the application was filed and allowed, the question of due diligence was not to be deliberated.”

The Court further recorded that “the amendment allowed, being limited and restricted to the change in the number of khasra of the property only, cannot be said to have either altered the cause of action or changed the nature of the suit.”

It was also observed that “whatever the defendants have to say qua the contents of the plaint, they can always do so through the written statement.”

On the scope of interference under supervisory jurisdiction, the Court concluded that “in these peculiar circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference.”

Also Read: Arbitration | Substantial Financial Interest Alone Cannot Justify Impleadment Of Non-Signatory Without Contractual Participation Or Relief Sought; Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Court directed: “this court finds no infirmity or perversity in the order under challenge, i.e., order dated 03.11.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. This petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajneesh K. Lall, Advocate, Ms. Chetna Thapar, Advocate

Case Title: Nikhil v. M/s Shourya Industries and Another
Neutral Citation: 2026: HHC:864
Case Number: CMPMO No. 651 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel