After Alleged House Demolition, P&H HC Upholds Refusal To Add Rebuilding Claim At Final-Arguments Stage

The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from demolishing his house.

During the suit, the house was allegedly demolished, and the petitioner sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to add a relief of mandatory injunction directing its reconstruction.

The Trial Court dismissed the amendment application, noting that the suit was at the stage of final arguments, the petitioner had not specified when the demolition occurred, and the Market Committee—alleged to have carried out the demolition—was not a party.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, including amendments based on subsequent developments, but its proviso bars amendments after commencement of trial unless the Court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

The Court also applied the principle that Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is not exercised merely to substitute the High Court’s view for that of the subordinate court; interference is warranted where the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error, manifest perversity, or material irregularity.

The original claim sought preventive relief against demolition, whereas the proposed amendment sought an order requiring reconstruction of a structure already demolished; that relief raised distinct questions about the circumstances of demolition and the responsible authority.

The petitioner gave no specific date or other particulars of the demolition and therefore did not satisfactorily explain why the amendment could not have been sought earlier, failing to establish due diligence.

Further, the Market Committee was not a party, and adjudicating the new relief could require additional pleadings, evidence, and consideration of whether that body was a necessary party. The petitioner’s stated willingness not to lead further evidence did not remove the respondents’ right to answer the new allegations.

The Trial Court’s refusal disclosed no basis for supervisory interference.

The revision petition was dismissed and the order dated 1 October 2025 was upheld; the Court clarified that its observations did not express any view on the merits of the original suit.