JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Instant petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 18.12.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge, Dalhousie, District Chamba whereby an application having been filed by respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘plaintiff’) under Order VI rule 17 CPC, praying therein for amendment of plaint came to be allowed.

2. For having a bird’s eye view of the matter, certain undisputed facts emerge from the pleadings available on record are that plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction restraining respondents/defendants (hereinafter, ‘defendants’) from interfering in any manner in the suit land comprised Khata Khatauni No.268/375, Khasra No. Kita 26, measuring 1-42-30 hectares situate at Mauja Bakrota, Tehsil Dalhousie, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, ‘suit land’). Defendants in their written statement to the plaint specifically raised preliminary objection with regard to authorization and competence of the plaintiff to file the suit. Apart from above, defendants claimed in the written statement that the subject “Khyber House” is different property from St. John Church and the shops and the houses adjoining to it. Defendants claimed that St. John Church is property of Indian Church Trustees (ICT). After having noticed aforesaid objection raised by defendants with regard to competence of the plaintiff to institute the suit and details of the suit property, plaintiff preferred an application under Order VI, rule 17 CPC, before framing of issues, seeking therein permission to amend plaint on the ground that at the time of filing of suit, plaintiff despite due diligence, inadvertently mentioned the name of church as “Saint John Church” whereas, its real name was “Sadhu Sunder Singh Chapel”. Besides above, plaintiff also submitted that the words “and the shops” as mentioned in the description of suit property were also required to be deleted Plaintiff also claimed that while filing the suit, he was unable to mention with regard to photographs he intended to place on record to demonstrate his ownership and possession. By way of amendment, plaintiff also prayed to clarify his capacity to file the suit as Bishop of Diocese of Amritsar and to correct the title of suit, from Chairman of Church of England, Jnana Mission Property to Bishop of Diocese of Amritsar, Chairman Church of England, Jnana Mission, which owns and possesses Church of England, Jnana Mission Property. Plaintiff claimed that the amendments sought by way of application are necessary for proper adjudication of the case.

3. Defendants opposed the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of plaintiff on the ground that the amendment soughts, if allowed would amount to changing the nature of the suit. Defendants claimed before learned court below that by way of amendment, plaintiff is seeking amendment in the title of suit and thereby introducing a new plaintiff as the suit has been filed for and on behalf of Bishop Diocese of Amritsar, Chairman, Church of England, Jnana Mission, which is a new entity and in case, aforesaid amendment is allowed, it would change title of the suit.

4. Learned court below, having taken note of pleadings adduced in the application at hand, proceeded to allow the amendment as prayed for. In the aforesaid background defendants have approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to quash the order allowing the amendment.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by learned court below, while passing impugned award this court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as such, no interference is called for.

6. Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, learned counsel for the defendants vehemently argued that bare perusal of averments contained in the application seeking amendment to suit, itself suggests that the plaintiff has sought to change entire complexion of suit by way of