The court emphasized that the purpose of allowing amendment is to determine the question involved in the suit and that the nature of controversy between the parties should not be changed by the proposed amendments.

JUDGMENT :

1. SB Civil Writ Petition No.10393/2015 has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners challenging the order dated 21st April, 2015, whereby the application, filed by the petitioners, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.

2. SB Civil Writ Petition No.10197/2015 has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners challenging the order dated 19th January, 2015, whereby the application, filed by the petitioners, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amending the temporary injunction application, has been dismissed.

3. SB Civil Writ Petition No.10471/2015 has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners challenging the order dated 21st April, 2015, whereby the application, filed by the petitioners, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed.

4. SB Civil Writ Petition No.10154/2015 has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners challenging the order dated 21st April, 2015, whereby the application, filed by the petitioners, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the parties in temporary injunction application has been dismissed.

5. This Court finds that the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant- respondents - Virendra Singh and Bhole, wherein it was prayed that the property in question may be declared to be in the exclusive ownership of the petitioners and further, permanent injunction was required to be issued against the respondents for not creating any hindrance in use of the property and further, they were required to be restrained to make any construction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after filing of the suit, it came to notice of the plaintiff-petitioners that in respect of the same property, which was subject-matter of the suit, few persons, in clandestine manner, got one adopted deed dated 6th July, 2011 executed without paying any consideration and the land in question was given to one Rakesh, adopted son of Shrichand and mother of adopted child, namely, Hemlata sold the said property to wife of the defendant - Bhole.

7. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the changed circumstances, where these transactions took place, the plaintiff- petitioners moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for making amendment in the suit and prayed that subsequent developments were required to be brought on record and the sale deed and transfer of property were required to be set aside by the Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was also filed in the main suit as well as in the application for temporary injunction, as the subsequent transferees, in the land in question, were required to be added as a party defendant in the suit.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below, by the impugned order dated 21st April, 2015, has dismissed both the applications, filed by the petitioners.

10. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has wrongly came to conclusion that by making amendment in the suit, the nature of suit will be changed and further, the parties, who are already there as defendant, will together be clubbed as subsequent purchaser-transferees of land and as such, the Court below, without considering the nature of amendment, has rejected the application filed by the petitioners.

11. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration and if the subsequent developments were null and void, the same could have been decided by the Court by further passing a decree of declaration.

12. Learned counsel submitted that subsequent developments and transfer of land were not changing the nature of suit in any manner and the Court below further failed to consider that in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the petitioners had made an application for amendment of the pleadings.

13. Learned counsel submitted that at the time of filing of suit, the petitioners were not aware as what has transpired between Shrichand, who allegedly gave the property to his adopted son and