Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Amendment Of Plaint To Rectify Khasra Number, Says Cause Of Action Unaffected
Mehak Aggarwal
2 Feb 2026 5:35 PM IST
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order allowing amendment of a plaint to correct an erroneous khasra number, holding that such a limited amendment does not alter the cause of action or change the nature of the suit.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked 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, because whatever the defendants have to say qua the contents of the plaint, they can always do so through the written statement.”
The respondent filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction alleging interference with land situated at District Sirmour. Initially the land was described as Khasra No. 1013/346/176, measuring 00-16-00 bighas in the plaint.
However, within a short span of time the plaintiff realised that the khasra number mentioned was wrong and sought amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
The amendment application was allowed by the trial court, on the ground that the amendment application was filed at an early stage and no written statement was filed, also the error was merely clerical.
The petitioner challenged the trial court's decision, contending that the amendment substantially altered the cause of action as the area of land stood enhanced. Further contending that the amendment could not have been permitted in the absence of proof of due diligence under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
The High Court observed that the only change permitted was the correction of the khasra number apart from it not even a word has been allowed to be altered by the learned Trial Court in the entire plaint.
On the point of due diligence, the Court clarified that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC becomes relevant only after commencement of trial, which was not the scenario in this case.
Thus, the Court upheld the trial court's order.
Case Name: Nikhil v/s M/s Shourya industries and another
Case No.: CMPMO No.651 of 2025
Date of Decision: 05.01.2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajneesh K. Lall, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Ms. Chetna Thapar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.