The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party may be allowed to amend the plaint if the cause of action has accrued after the filing of the suit, in order to meet the ends of justice.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present petition is maintained by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting the order dated 10.11.2015, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P, in case titled Neeraj & others vs. Rajinder Kumar and others, in an application filed by the petitioners/applicants under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissing the application of the petitioner with a prayer to allow the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred as ‘plaintiffs’) maintained the suit for mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred as ‘defendants’) before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, with a prayer that respondents No.1 to 4 be restrained from constructing the window panes of the glaze of second floor towards the house of the plaintiffs by issuing a mandatory injunction, but after filing of the suit, the defendants have in fact raised construction of the first floor of the window panes of the glaze, in such a manner that they have encroached upon the open air towards the house of the plaintiffs. So, the suit was required to be amended by including the loss. As per the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 4 have got the window panes of the glaze of the second floor towards the house of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiffs claimed the relief of mandatory injunction qua the window panes of the glaze of the second storey/floor of the house of the defendants and for that purpose the plaintiffs intend to amend their plaint in the following manner :

“(i) That the head note “A” and prayer clause “A” of the plaint is to be amended as under :

The words “Thereby directing the defendants No. 1 to 4 to open the window panes of their glaze laid in newly constructed 1st floor of their house” are to be substituted by the words “Directing the defendants No. 1 to 4 to open the window panes of their glazes laid in newly constructed 1st floor and 2nd floor of their house inside their rooms.”

(ii) That a new para No.7-A is to be added in the plaint as under :

“That the defendant No.1 to 4 has got the window panes of the second floor of their house fixed with its opening towards the house of plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit which are also required to be removed.”

3. Reply to the application was filed. As per the defendants, plaintiffs have already sought the relief of mandatory injunction in their amended plaint, which was filed by them in the month of April, 2009, when plaintiffs moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of their plaint. Plaintiffs have filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to fill up the lacuna of their case to which they are not entitled.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

5. At this moment, it is clear from the record that the plaintiffs want to amend the plaint after filing of the suit, defendants have raised the construction and the plaint is required to be amended as the cause of action has accrued after filing of the suit. The plaintiffs were required to be allowed to amend the suit, as plaintiff was having this cause after filing of the plaint, since the construction, as per the plaintiffs, was raised during the pendency of the suit.

6. Earlier also, the plaintiffs had moved a similar application before the learned Court below, but the same was withdrawn. In these circumstances, this Court finds that application of the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is required to be allowed to meet the ends of justice. However, the defendants are required to be compensated with costs assessed to the tune of Rs.6,000/- (rupees six thousand only).

7. In view of the