Court Cannot Assess Veracity Of Local Commissioner's Report While Deciding Amendment Application: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that while deciding an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Appellate Court cannot question the veracity of the Local Commissioner's report, as examining its veracity lies within the domain of the parties and must be tested through evidence.

The Court further remarked that allowing an amendment does not amount to accepting it; the respondent would still have the opportunity to contest the amended pleadings through a written statement and evidence.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Raising objections to the report… lay in the domain of the respondent… it was not for the learned Court to have had commented upon the veracity of the report… Had the application been allowed… it would not have amounted to the admission of the averments…”

The petitioner's suit for injuction was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal and obtained a status quo order under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

However, the respondent did not adhere to the status quo order and raised fresh construction, after which the petitioner filed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner.

The Local Commissioner in the report mentioned a house along with a veranda, which looked freshly constructed.

Relying on the Local Commissioner's report, the petitioner sought an amendment of the plaint to introduce these subsequent events. However, the application was dismissed by the Trial Court.

The petitioner contended that the amendment became necessary only because new events occurred during the appeal, and allowing the application would not have amounted to accepting the contention, as the respondent would still have the opportunity to file a written statement.

The High Court observed that the report of the Local Commissioner clearly showed fresh construction on the suit land.

Further, the Court noted that the petitioner satisfied the test of due diligence as the events occurred during the pendency of the appeal and the amendment was to bring the facts on record.

The Court remarked that the petitioner only wanted to bring on record the events that occurred during the appeal and to not improve his case.

Thus, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside order of the Appellate Court.

Case Name: Nanak Chand v/s Madan Lal

Case No.: CMPMO No.644 of 2022

Date of Decision: 27.10.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Kumar Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sunny Modgil, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jai Ram, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order