Amendment of pleadings should not be allowed if it would cause injustice to the other party or if it is not necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

V. K Mebrotra, J.– Both these revisions under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are by Sri Ram Gopal and the sole respondent in both of them is Shri Shakti Chand, There is a piece of land situate in Sanjauli in District Shimla, The two co-owners thereof were Ram Gopal and his uncle Bhagat Ram. The total area of this land is four biswas,

2. On 7 February. 1983 Bhagat Ram sold his half share in the property, namely, land to an extent of two biswas through sale-deed of that date in favour of Shakti Chand. On the basis of the sale in his favour Shakti Cband obtained mutation in his name over the area of two biswas on 16 February, 1983. Ram Gopal objected to the mutation on various grounds and it was cancelled by an order dated 11 July, 1983.

3. On 11 August, 1983 Shakti Chand filed suit No. 195-1/83 impleading petitioner Ram Gopal and Bhagat Ram as defendants in it. The relief sought by him in the suit was that it be declared that the cancellation of mutation in his name was invalid and that the defendants be restrained from raising any construction over that part of the land which had been purchased by him. The further relief sought was that a decree for partition of the land, separating his area of two biswas, be granted to him.

4. Suit No. 2-1/86 was instituted by Ram Gopal and Bhagat Ram on 26 December, 1985 as plaintiffs and Shakti Chand was made the sole defendant therein. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit was that Bhagat Ram was a person of unsound mind and that Shakti Chand had secured the sale-deed dated 7 February, 1983 by practising fraud on him and without there being any consideration for the sale.

5. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial Court by an order made on 5 January, 1989, Parties led their evidence on consideration whereof the trial Judge disposed of the suits by a common judgment on 30 April, 1990 The suit of Shakti Chand was decreed. The suit filed by Ram Gopal and Bhagat Ram was dismissed. The decree in the two suits was then assailed by Ram Gopal by filing Civil Appeal No. 63-S/13 of 1990 causing out of suit No. 195-1/83) and Civil Appeal No. 60-S/13 of 1990 (arising out of subsequent suit No. 2-1/86). It may be mentioned that before the decision in the suits Bhagat Ram died and his name was directed to be deleted, inasmuch as, his sole heir was Ram Gopal who was already a party in the suit.

6. During the pendency of appeals two applications under Order 6f Rule 17 CRC. were filed by Ram Gopal seeking amendment of the written statement in the suit in which he was a defendant and amedment of the plaint in the later suit instituted by him. In substance, what was sought to be added by way of a plea in both the suits by Ram Gopal was that he had preferential right to acquire the interest which was transferred by his uncle Bhagat Ram in favour of Shakti Chand by virtue of section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Based upon this plea, which was sought to be added at the appellate stage, relief was also sought to be amended by adding a further prayer, in the suit instituted by Ram Gopal himself, that a decree be passed in his favour that he was entitled to acquire the entire interest of Bhagat Ram in two biswas land sold in favour of Shakti Chand by him and that the sale-deed in favour of Shakti Chand be cancelled on that account also. Also, that he was willing to acquire that interest from Shakti Chand.

7. Both these applications were considered by the learned Addl. District Judge (I), Shimla, before whom the two civil appeals aforesaid are pending for disposal and dismissed by a common order dated 7 November, 1991. It is this order which is assailed by Ram Gopal in the two revision petitions.

8. Basically the view taken by the learned Addl. District Judge is that Ram Gopal was seeking amendment after lapse of nearly seven years, long after his challenge to the validity of the sale-deed dated 7 February, 1983 bad failed, on the grounds on which it was made.Also, that any plea founded