Uttarakhand High Court
23 May vs Shri Hoshiyar Singh Negi on 23 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:4345
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1503 of 2025
23 May, 2025
Shri Deepak Kumar Negi --Petitioner
Versus
Shri Hoshiyar Singh Negi --Respondent
With
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1509 of 2025
Shri Deepak Kumar Negi --Petitioner
Versus
Shri Anirudh Bhati and another --Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Since common questions of law and fact are
involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are
heard together and are being decided by a common
judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1503 of 2025 alone are being
considered and discussed.
2. Petitioner sought leave to amend his written
statement by making an application under Order 6 Rule
2025:UHC:4345
17 CPC. His application was rejected by learned Trial
Court, vide order dated 26.10.2024. Petitioner,
thereafter filed revision under Section 115 CPC. His
revision was also dismissed by Fourth Additional District
Judge, Dehradun, vide judgment dated 26.03.2025.
Petitioner has challenged the Trial Court's order dated
26.10.2024 and judgment rendered by Revisional Court
on 26.03.2025.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the impugned judgment and orders. From
perusal of record, it is revealed that originally, relief of
permanent injunction was sought by the plaintiff
(respondent herein) and the suit was filed on
12.07.2019; soon after filing of the suit, plaintiff sought
leave to amend for adding the relief of mandatory
injunction and his amendment application was allowed
by Trial Court, vide order dated 11.02.2021.
4. It transpires that petitioner filed an
application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, which was dismissed by learned Trial Court, vide
order dated order dated 04.09.2021, and subsequently
on 04.10.2021, petitioner filed written statement to the
unamended plaint and he did not respond to the
pleadings added through amendment in the plaint.
2025:UHC:4345
Issues were framed, as per the pleadings of the parties
and thereafter both the parties led evidence and now
suit is fixed for final hearing. At this belated stage,
petitioner sought leave to amend his written statement
for giving reply to the pleadings, which were added in
the plaint through amendment.
5. Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for
amendment made by petitioner. Learned Revisional
Court affirmed the order passed by Trial Court.
6. I have gone through the impugned order
passed by Trial Court as affirmed by Revisional Court.
Learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer
made by petitioner seeking leave to amend his written
statement. Petitioner contested the suit without giving
reply to the pleadings added in the plaint through
amendment in February, 2021, therefore, after closer of
evidence when matter was fixed for final hearing, the
prayer of the petitioner could not have been allowed.
Learned Trial Court rightly held that it is a dilatory
tactics adopted by petitioner, who wants to linger on
the matter for obvious reasons. Learned Revisional
Court has given valid reasons for dismissing the
revision petition filed by petitioner. Proviso to Order 6
Rule 17 CPC ordains that application for amendment
2025:UHC:4345
shall not be allowed after commencement of trial,
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.
7. In the present case, the conduct of the
petitioner reveals that he was not diligent. He filed
written statement to the unamended plaint on
04.10.2021, although, the plaint was amended much
earlier pursuant to order dated 11.02.2021. Petitioner
contested the suit without seeking leave to amend his
written statement, before framing of issues or even
when the witnesses were being examined. Thus, the
prayer made by petitioner, for amending the written
statement could not have been granted at the stage of
final hearing. No party can be permitted to play with
judicial proceedings and dilatory tactics adopted by a
party should not be encouraged.
8. Thus, this Court do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment and orders. The
writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No order as to
costs.
________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Navin
