Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jawahar Lal vs Vinet Sood And Ors on 19 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Date of Decision: 19th August, 2025.
Jawahar Lal .....Petitioner
Versus
.
Vinet Sood and Ors. ....Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tejasvi Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
By way of the present petition, a challenge has
been laid to the impugned order dated 30.11.2022, passed
by the learned Civil 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
respondents seeking amendment of plaint has been
allowed 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
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
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 Khasra
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 suit, 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 original 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
of justice."
3. 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 through 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 construction without any approval from
Town and Country Planning 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 Khatauni 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 existing house in contravention of
TCP Act and MC Act that too in complete defiance of
status quo orders passed by this learned Court.
IIIA. And further in case the respondents/defendants
succeed in raising the construction illegally during the
pendency of the suit thereby blocking air and light
towards the house of applicants/plaintiffs the
defendants/respondents may kindly be ordered to bring
the construction to its original position as it stood at the
time of filing the case."
5. From the aforesaid facts and attending
circumstances, it is evident that initially the suit filed
wherein the present petitioner was not a party way back in
July 2016, only pertained to blocking of path leading to the
house of the present respondents/plaintiffs comprised in
Khasra No.643. Subsequent to the purchase made by the
present petitioner from the original defendant
No.1/proforma respondent No.3 herein, the present
.
petitioner stepped into the shoes of the defendant
No.1/proforma respondent No.3.
6. Thereafter, on account of alleged illegal
construction sought to be made by the present petitioner,
the present respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs before the
learned trial Court sought an amendment to the suit
restraining the present petitioner/defendant No.2 before
the trial Court, from raising construction over Khasra
No.643, thereby interfering in the easmentary right of light
and air of the present respondents/plaintiffs.
7. The trial Court in the aforesaid backdrop, was of the
view that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation between
the parties, it would be appropriate, if the amendment as
sought by the present respondents/plaintiffs before the
learned trial Court is allowed. Further the trial Court
allowed the amendment sought, as it was of the view that
the proceedings are still in the nascent stage, as issues are
yet to be framed inter se the parties.
8. In my considered view and in the scenario in the
case at hand, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
should ordinarily be allowed as it helps in adjudicating the
matter inter se the parties and the same also helps in
avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Other than the
aforesaid, allowing the amendment, in the case at hand,
.
does not result injustice to either side. Even otherwise,
issues in the case at hand have yet to be framed. The
amendment sought is not mala fide and does not change
the nature of the suit, as a consequence whereof the
present petitioner does not lose any valid defence and no
9.
r to
time barred claim is sought to be raised, in the case at
hand.
Besides the aforesaid, the present petition has been
preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to
interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in
terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to
set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or
violation of fundamental principle of law or justice,
miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and
perversity.
10. Moreover in a supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or
re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting
every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final
finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible.
(See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. &
another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs.
Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181).
11. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated here-in-
.
above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made
out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. In view of above terms, I see no reason to interfere
in the impugned order, therefore, the present petition is
shall also stand disposed of.
r to
dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
Parties are directed to appear before the learned
trial Court on 27.08.2025.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
19th August, 2025
(Gaurav Rawat)
