Order—6 Rule 17—Amendment of plaint—Scope—Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction—Suit at initial stage—Correction of Khasra number in plaint—Application filed immediately after institution of suit and before filing of written statement—Application allowed—Challenged—Held—That, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 relating to due diligence not applicable prior to commencement of trial—No prejudice to defendants—Discretion exercised by Trial Court upheld—Interference under supervisory jurisdiction declined—Order allowing amendment upheld. Nikhil V/s M/s Shourya Industries and another., Latest HLJ 2026 (HP)(1) 116(HPHC)
Order—18 Rule-3-A—read with Article—227 of the Constitution of India, 1950—Examination of party as witness—Grant of permission to the plaintiff to appear as a witness—Scope and discretion—Plaintiff examined after other witnesses—Application allowed—Challenged—Held—That Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC, though mandatory in form, confers discretion upon the Court to permit deviation where reasons are recorded—A party is not bound to seek leave before examining first witness and may seek permission later—Where the Trial Court, on appreciation of record, found that the plaintiff’s non-examination at the initial stage was neither deliberate nor intended to fill lacunae, that the defendants had waived objection, and no prejudice would be caused, permission granted could not be termed perverse—Discretion exercised judiciously—Interference under Article-227 unwarranted. Sh. Gaurav Sharma and another V/s M/s Durga and Sons., Latest HLJ 2026 (HP)(1) 96(HPHC)