Sat Narayan vs Bahadur Singh And Others on 4 February, 2026
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that facts of the case have
not been correctly appreciated while allowing the application under Order 6 Rule
17 of CPC. Rather, false facts have been pleaded in the application seeking
amendment alleging that defendant No.1/respondent has been forcibly
dispossessed from the suit property in the month of July 2024. Infact, defendant
was never in possession of the suit property which is in the occupation of plaintiff
since long. The Local Commissioner was also appointed who has given his report
and respondent has filed the objections against the said report. The trial has
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 23:05:50 :::
CR-1123-2026 (O&M) - 2-
already commenced and respondent/defendant No.1 could not have been allowed
to amend the written statement as well as counter claim at a belated stage and
impugned order is thus not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. In support of
his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment dated
03.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Misc. Petition
Main (Original) No.356 of 2022 titled 'Sarabjit Singh Vs. Smt. Harbhajan
Kaur', (2009) 2 SCC 409 'Vidyabal and Others Vs. Padmalatha and Another'
and judgment dated 08.05.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
CR-1498-2025 (O&M) titled 'M/s Galaxy Logistic Service Vs. M/s Trim India
Pvt. Ltd.'