JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi, dated 11.08.2023, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent herein, has been allowed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession with consequential relief of injunction against the petitioners herein on the ground that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of a house situated on land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 563/711, Khasra No. 3363/2314/1442, measuring 17.50 sq. meters, situated in Mohal Sain/366/1, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, which was purchased by the plaintiff from Smt. Kashuma Devi vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.2010. It was further averred in the plaint that when plaintiff came to see the said property on 10.06.2010, he found that the defendants, who were residents of a nearby house, had broken the lock of the plaintiff’s house and kept their articles inside his house and started construction work of second story of the same. When plaintiff asked them to vacate the house, they do not do so, hence the suit for possession of the suit premises came to be filed alongwith the relief of mesne profit/damages etc.

3. The claim of the plaintiff has been denied by the petitioners herein/defendants. In the written statement, the defence taken by them is that the Khsra No. 3363/2314/1442 (old), measuring 27.50 sq. meters was allotted to Smt. Kashuma Devi under Indira Viskash Yojna and thereafter, on 30.10.1994, she mortgaged this land with one Sh. Hansh Raj for an amount of Rs.60,000/-. The possession of the same was also handed over to Sh. Hansh Raj and thereafter, vide agreement to sell dated 20.01.1999, she sold this land to Sh. Hansh Raj for sale consideration of Rs.60,000/-. It is further averred therein that thereafter Sh. Hansh Raj constructed two rooms and kitchen over the suit land and vide agreement to sell dated 22.10.2009, Sh. Hansh Raj sold the land alongwith rooms and kitchen to defendant No. 2 for sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. Defendant No. 2 renovated the entire structure by spending Rs.2.00 Lac thereupon and thus, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief as was being prayed for.

4. The suit was filed in the year 2010. On 19.02.2022, when the case was at the stage of arguments, an application was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. Amendment sought was to the effect that the area of the suit land in fact was 27.50 sq. meters. On an application field by the plaintiff before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sadar, Mandi, corrections were made in the revenue record, as per order passed by the authority dated 02.02.2019. The area of the suit land stood corrected from 17.50 sq. meters to 27.50 sq. meters. Accordingly, a prayer was made by the plaintiff to allow him to amend the plaint by reflecting the suit land to be 27.50n sq. meters.

5. The application was opposed by the non-applicants/ defendants.

6. Vide impugned order, this application has been allowed by learned Court below. While allowing the application, learned Court held that whereas in the plaint, it was mentioned by the plaintiff that the suit land was measuring 17.50 sq. meters, but in the written statement, the defendants had stated that the same is measuring 27.50 sq. meters. The plaintiff had filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sadar, Mandi, for correction in the revenue record, which application was allowed and consequent thereto, a note was appended on the jamabandi, which was placed by the plaintiff on record. As these developments were subsequent to the filing of the suit and there was disclosure of the area of the suit land even in the written statement filed