Court ruled that procedural amendment requests should be allowed even after the trial begins, provided they clarify existing claims and do not introduce new issues.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against order, dated 3^rd January, 2023, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. III, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2015, titled as Harbans Lal and others vs. Babita Rani , whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

3. The factual position, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:

3.1. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession of land, measuring 16 kanal 6 marlas, being 326/4444 share, out of total land, measuring 222 kanal 4 marlas, comprised in Kewat No. 1 min, Khatauni No. 1 min, bearing khasra No. 549, as entered in the jamabandi for the years 1955-56, situated in Mohal Lal Singi, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’), on the ground that the same is owned and possessed by the defendant, alongwith other land, to the extent of her share.

3.2. The said relief has been sought on the ground that the plaintiffs have purchased the land, vide registered sale deed, dated 28^th December, 1981, for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from Sh. Jaspal Singh, son of Sh. Ajit Singh, son of Sh. Jai Kishan, father of the defendant and mutation, in this regard, is stated to be sanctioned vide mutation No.1220, dated 27^th June, 1982.

3.3. According to the plaintiffs, there was stipulation in the sale deed that in case, there is any defect in the title of the vendor, regarding the subject matter of the sale, in that eventuality, the other land of the same value shall be given to the vendees, in lieu of the land sold.

3.4. It is their case that during partition, the title of vendor-Jaspal Singh, father of the defendant, was found defective, as such, mutation No. 1220, dated 7^th June, 1982 was ordered to be reviewed by the Settlement Collector, vide order, dated 23^rd December, 1998. Hence, the relief of possession has been sought.

4. The said suit was contested by the defendant, by taking the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable; the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit; the plaintiffs are estopped by their act, conduct, deeds and acquiescence to the file the present suit; the plaintiffs have no legally enforceable cause of action; and, that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands.

4.1. Admitting the fact, as a matter of record, regarding the share of Jaspal Singh, Tek Chand and Vijay Kumar, it has been denied that the estate of Jaspal Singh has been succeeded by the defendant. The defendant has also denied that the title of her father was defective. It has also been denied that the suit land, as well as, the land, which was subject matter of the sale deed, in favour of the plaintiffs, is the same. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the suit.

5. Issues, in this case, were framed on 15^th February, 2017. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce the evidence.

6. After the closure of the evidence, when, the matter was listed for arguments, an application, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been filed, by the plaintiffs.

7. By way of the said application, the plaintiffs ha