The main legal point established in the judgment is that while amendments in pleadings may be allowed, they should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party, and a right accrued by lapse of time cannot be taken away by amendment.

1. - The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29.4.1999 by which the application of the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC for amending the plaint has been rejected.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner filed a suit in 1992 for permanent injunction against the non-petitioners-defendants alleging that the non-petitioners-defendants are adjacent neighbours and have opened a fixed iron gate in the common wall of the parties. The non-petitioners-defendants, by opening the alleged door and fixing the iron gate thereon have encroached the petitioner-plaintiff's ota (Chabutri)and have trespassed over it. The matter is pending since then and at a belated stage, after six years, he filed an application for amendment as he wanted to make the amendment to the effect that along with the ota (Chabutri), stares have to be added and further that during the pendency of the suit, the non-petitioners-defendants had also constructed a toilet in the balcony extending the balcony by putting iron rods and the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction for demolition thereof. The said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court being filed at a belated stage. The learned trial Court was of the view that as the amendment is also for direction to demolishing the toilet, it will change the very nature of the suit and, therefore, the amendment was not allowed. Hence, this revision petition.

3. Admittedly, if the amendment is allowed and the facts of construction of toilet and the right of the petitioner-plaintiff to get it demolished is accepted, it will definitely change the nature of the suit. On hat count alone, it is not a case where the trial Court may be said to have exercised the jurisdiction improperly. Neither in the application filed before the learned trial Court nor before this Court, it is evident anywhere as on that date the toilet was constructed because the suit was filed in 1992 and the amendment application was filed after six years i.e. in 1998. If limitation to file a fresh suit for mandatory injunction for demolition of the said toilet cannot be filed after expiry of three years from the date of construction, the amendment cannot be permitted as it would serve the purpose of the petitioner-plaintiff to serve his cause indirectly which he cannot achieve directly. Even today, in spite of repeatedly being asked, Shri Chhangani, learned counsel for the petitioner, is not in a position to state that as on what date the construction was made and if it has been made prior to three years from the date of moving the application, acceptance of such application would amount to disturbing the accrued rights in favour of the other parties and that is not permissible.

4. It is settled legal proposition that amendment in the pleadings may generally be allowed and the amendment may also be allowed at a belated stage. However, it should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The amendment sought should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Application for amendment may be rejected if the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him injury which could not be compensated in terms of cost or change the nature of the suit itself as it cannot be permitted to create an entirely new case by amendment. A right accrued in favour of a party by lapse of time cannot be permitted to be taken away by amendment. Amendment can also be allowed at appellate stage. Introduction of an entirely new case, displacing even admission by a party is not permissible. (Vide : P.H. Patil vs. Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil & Ors., AIR 1957 SC 363 ; Nanduri Yogananda Laxminarsimhachari & Ors. v. Agasthe Swarswamivaru, AIR 1960 SC 622 ; M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s. La