JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner (original plaintiff) has challenged the order dated 01.02.2020 passed by learned 17th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur whereby an application for amendment of plaint (Exh. 140) under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “the Code”) has been rejected.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, specific performance of contract and possession, permanent injunction and for cancellation of sale deed dated 31.01.2007 executed and registered in favour of defendant No.2 to 11 by defendant No.1. It may be noted here that the suit land which is subject matter of the agreement and in respect of which specific performance of contract is sought is survey No.176, Mouza Sitabaldi having area 0.55 HR (1.33 Acres).

4. According to petitioner/plaintiff, defendant Nos.12 and 13 filed their written statement on 19.11.2012 without any documents. They filed documents only on 28.11.2017, the details of which are given in application (Exh.-140). One of the document is certified copy of schedule-1. It is further the grievance of petitioner/plaintiff that all these documents were directly exhibited in the evidence and it is only after exhibition of document, namely, certified copy of scheduled-1 (Exh. 107), he started thorough search from the office of Sub-Registrar, Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Mumbai and Revenue Department to ascertain the exact facts.

5. According to petitioner/plaintiff after making an inquiry, it revealed that the suit land is not the same which is claimed by defendant Nos. 12 and 13 and is entirely different. In this back ground, petitioner/plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint to insert the basic history of suit land on the basis of material documents and to assists in deciding the main controversy in dispute.

6. The above said application was opposed by defendant Nos. 12 and 13. According to them, the proposed amendment had absolutely no relevance for the purpose of instant suit which is one for specific performance of the contract. By way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff intended to change the nature of the suit as to one for title, which is totally impermissible. More over, the instant suit is for limited purpose of deciding the issue pertaining to allege agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Thus, for all these reasons, the application is not tenable under the provisions of order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.

7. Shri A.K. Waghmare, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to the impugned order and would submit that the defendant Nos. 12 and 13 had not filed the relevant documents at the time of filing of written statement and for the first time filed those documents on record and that too during the course of evidence and claimed owners of the suit land. It is only when after receipt of said documents, the petitioner/plaintiff started search of the basic history of the claim made by defendant nos.12 and 13 and found that their claim was not matching with the suit property. In as much as, the suit property is different than the property which is claimed by defendant Nos. 12 and 13. By way of proposed amendment, the petitioner/plaintiff only wanted to give explanation as to the nature of property which in any case would not have changed the nature of the suit and was rather essential for determination of controversy between the parties. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Judge wrongly rejected the application and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and application (140) deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance in the following citations which are as under:- Rameshkumar Agrawal vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others (2012) 5 SCC 337, Abdul Rehman and another vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others, (201