IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.166 of 2010 Date of decision : May 31, 2010 Rasilu Ram …Petitioner. Versus Pritto Ram and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, despite service. Hence, they are proceeded against ex-parte. 2. A suit has been instituted against the petitioner by the respondents, for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction and also for possession, alleging that on a portion of their land bearing Khasra No.586 situate in Mauza Sidhbari, District Kangra, petitioner plans to raise construction. So, they prayed for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining him from raising any construction over any portion of the abovesaid Khasra number. It was also prayed that since some portion of the said Khasra number had already been encroached upon by the petitioner by raising construction or otherwise, a decree of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… mandatory injunction, directing the demolition of construction raised thereon and also for possession of the site be passed. 3. Petitioner took the plea that he was confining his construction to his adjoining land, which was owned and possessed by him. Three Local Commissioners were appointed for delineating the boundary. Reports of the first two Local Commissioners were set aside, on the objections of the petitioner. The third Local Commissioner has reported that some portion of Khasra No.586 of the respondents has been utilized by the petitioner in construction of his structure. Petitioner then filed an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of written statement, so as to take a plea of adverse possession, qua the portion of Khasra No.586, which the Local Commissioner reported to be in his possession. Application has been dismissed by the trial Court. So, the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for the reversal of the order of the trial Court and allowing the application for amendment of the written statement. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 5. Reasoning given by the trial Court for dismissing the application is that there is delay of about seven years in making the application for amendment. It is now well settled that delay, by itself, is no ground for not allowing amendment, especially when the rejection of prayer for amendment would result in multiplicity of litigation. Reference in this behalf may …3… be made to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma versus Makhan Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 626. 6. In view of the abovestated position, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order of the trial Court is set aside. Consequently, application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the petitioner- defendant, is allowed and amendment in the written statement is permitted to be made. The order is subject to payment of costs of Rs.1500/- to the respondents-plaintiffs, which shall be deposited in the trial Court, within one month. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, in view of the disposal of the main petition. May 31, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J