The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should be allowed only if it is necessary to determine the real issue in controversy between the parties and does not cause injustice to the other party.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter `CPC'), has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking the following relief:

"In view of the submissions made above the Revision Petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and set aside the impugned order dated 28.9.2022 and allow the application of the plaintiff U/O 6, Rule 17 of CPC.

It is prayed accordingly."

2. The relevant facts leading to the instant petition are reproduced herein:

i. The petitioner i.e., the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court had filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 570/2016, against the respondents/defendants, thereby, seeking partition and permanent injunction of four properties bearing Nos. 6, 9, 134, 135, Village Sarai kale Khan, Nizamuddin, New Delhi (hereinafter `Suit Property').

ii. It is the case of the petitioner in the suit, that the Suit Property is the ancestral property and parties thereto have equal rights over the same. Pursuant to the filing of the suit, written statement was filed by the respondents, thereby, submitting before the learned Trial Court that one suit bearing No. 187/1978 (titled Ram Swarup & Ors. v. Lal Chand & Ors.), was filed between the fathers of the parties namely, Late Sh. Ram Swarup, Late Sh. Rati Ram and Late Sh. Lal Chand S/o Late Sh. Ram Saran.

iii. In their written statement, the respondents had pleaded that the suit bearing No. 187/1978, was settled on 27th August 1978, and compromise decree dated 10th October 1978, was also drawn on the basis of the said compromise.

iv. The respondents had also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, wherein, they had alleged that in the Suit bearing No. 187/1978, a compromise deed was entered into by the father of the petitioner with his brothers, hence, accordingly the petitioner has no right in the Suit Property. Hence, no cause of action arises in favour of the petitioner to file the suit. Therefore, the plaint of the petitioner deserves to be rejected.

v. Thereafter, the petitioner filed its application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint, submitting that out of the above mentioned four properties, one property bearing No. 134 admeasuring 50 sq. yards which was inoccupation of Late Sh. Ram Swarup has been sold by him to one Smt. Krishna Taneja. The petitioner had purchased the said sold property from Smt. Krishna Tanjeja and accordingly he is the absolute owner of the property. In view of the same, the petitioner is not seeking partition of property bearing No. 134, and hence, property No. 134 be deleted from the prayer clause of his plaint.

Furthermore, the petitioner by way of the amended plaint sought to challenge the compromise deed dated 27th August 1978, and compromise decree dated 10th October 1978.

vi. Respondents had also filed a cross suit bearing No. 367/2017 titled as Rishipal v. Giri Raj, seeking partition of the property on the ground that since, the petitioner is not willing to adhere to the partition as per the compromise deed, the property be partitioned in accordance with the law by the order of the court.

vii. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, vide order dated 28th September 2022, thereby, holding that there are no valid grounds on which the application of the petitioner can be allowed. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that present petition has been filed against the order dated 28th September 2022, whereby, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed by the learned Trial Court without taking into the consideration certain facts and law as established.

4. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner had filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC contending therein, that pro