ORDER :

1. Since both the petitions arise from similar orders, whereby application for amending the plaint has been rejected and whereas the dispute raised in the Civil Suit being similar in nature and whereas even the amendment sought for is identical, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate, more particularly, with the consent of parties, to take both these applications for hearing together.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Darshan M. Parikh on behalf of the respondent.

3. By way of these applications, the applicants-original plaintiffs challenge an order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli dated 21.08.2017 below Exhibit-40 & 37 in Special Civil Suit No.75 of 2013 and Special Civil Suit No.74 of 2013 respectively. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-original plaintiff had preferred Special Civil Suit No.75 of 2013 and Special Civil Suit No.74 of 2013 inter-alia challenging a registered sale deed entered into between the original plaintiff and the defendant i.e. the parties before the Court. Learned advocate would submit that in the Civil Suit, the original plaintiff had specifically mentioned that possession of the suit property was with the original plaintiff and whereas it was in such regard prayed that the defendant may not in any manner obstruct the original plaintiff from enjoying possession of the suit property. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani would further submit that the defendant in their reply to the suit had contested the submission that the possession of the property was with the original plaintiff. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani would submit that during pendency of the Civil Suit an application Exhibit-40 had been preferred by the original plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter-alia requesting the learned Civil Court to permit amendment of pleadings. Learned advocate would draw the attention of this Court to the averments in the said application and would submit that while originally it was the case of the plaintiff that the possession of the suit property was with the plaintiff, since interim injunction had neither been granted by the learned Civil Court nor by this Court in Appeal from Order, and since the possession of the plaintiff had not been believed by both the Courts, therefore, the application for amendment was preferred inter-alia for amending the plaint to incorporate a prayer for directing the defendant to restore or return the possession of the land in question in favour of the original plaintiff applicant herein. It appears that in the application, it was also mentioned by the plaintiff that the defendants had taken over forcible possession of the suit property during pendency of the suit proceedings. The learned Civil Court vide the impugned order, had rejected such application, more particularly, by holding that the plaintiff could not establish that the issues which were sought to be incorporated by way of the application for amendment was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff, even after due diligence and whereas the learned Civil Court has also observed that the plaintiff was trying to improve his case and whereas if amendment were to be allowed then the entire nature of the suit would be changed.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani on behalf of the petitioner would assail such observations by submitting that the amendment, if allowed, would not have caused any prejudice to the defendant. Learned advocate would submit that upon the learned Civil Court as well as this Court not believing the version of the original plaintiff of possession of the suit property being with the original plaintiff, and not granting any interim relief in favour of the original plaintiff, the original plaintiff was entitled to move the application for amendment, more particularly, to have the possession of the suit property restored back in his favour. Learned advocate Mr. Ja