The main legal point established in the judgment is that all necessary amendments for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 20/5/2022 passed by the Senior Civil Jude, Sriganganagar, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The suit was filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction in relation to a piece of land situated at Ratan Colony, Sriganganagar. The plaintiff questioned the validity of registered document dated 27/9/2019 executed by defendant no.2 through his power of attorney holder in favour of defendant nos. 3 to 5.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants no. 2 to 5 by claiming that the transfer made to them was valid. Based on the submissions of the parties, the trial court framed 06 issues.

4. Prior to that the Commissioner gave his report dated 15/4/2021 pertaining to the plot in question against which the petitioners filed objections on 26/8/2021.

5. The petitioners filed application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to add para 3 and 4 in the additional pleas inter alia claiming that the same was necessary for the purpose of clarification of the status of the plot in question. The application was contested by the plaintiff.

6. The trial court by its order impugned, after noticing the submissions and the judgments relied on by the parties, came to the following conclusion:

^^ÁkFkhZx.k@Áfroknhx.k }kjk gLrxr ÁkFkZuk i= ds ek/;e ls pkgs x, ÁLrkfor la'kks/ku iwoZ esa is'k ugha djus dk eq[; dkj.k Áfroknh la[;k 03 dks dksjksuk gksuk crk;k gS ysfdu mlds }kjk bl laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA ÁLrkfor la'kks/ku ds rF; Áfroknhx.k }kjk tokcnkok is'k djrs le; vfLrRo esa ,oa Áfroknhx.k ds /;ku esa Fks ftudk lekos'k muds }kjk vius tokcnkok esa fd;k tk ldrk Fkk ysfdu Áfroknhx.k }kjk ,slk ugha dj lk{; oknh ds ÁØe ij gLrxr ÁkFkZuk i= is'k x;k gS tks fd Ádj.k esa nsjh djus ds vk'k; i= ls is'k fd;k tkuk ÁdV gksrk gSA ÁkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd, tkus gqrq dksbZ Bksl dkj.k i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA fygktk mDr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vxr gLrxr ÁkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA^^

7. The trial court came to the conclusion that reason for nonfiling of the amendment application earlier has been indicated as defendant no. 3 suffering from Corona, however, no documentary evidence has been filed. The contentions raised in the amendment application were available at the time of filing of the written statement and the same were not incorporated at that time and same has been done at the stage of evidence of the plaintiff, which appears to have been done for delaying the proceedings and consequently rejected the application.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after taking the Court through the plaint, written statement, the report of the Commissioner and the amendment sought, attempted to make submissions that the amendment was necessary for just disposal of the case. As the petitioners, by the said application, simply attempted to clarify the status of the plot in question and that the plea raised is neither contrary to the stand already taken nor the same would change the nature of the pleas raised by the petitioners, therefore, rejection of the application in a cursory manner without even dealing with the amendment sought to be made by the petitioners is not justified.

9. Reliance has been placed on Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Ltd. & Anr. : Civil Appeal No. 5909/2022 decided on 1/9/2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Modern Tent House & Anr. : 2018 DNJ (SC) 9.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the plea raised by the petitioners in the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC pertains to the Commissioner report being the cause of filing the application. Against the Commissioner report objections have already been filed and, therefore, insofar as Commissioner report is concerned, its fate would be decided on the decision of