The court highlighted the importance of allowing amendments to pleadings only if necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and emphasized that such amendments should not lead to the introduction of a totally new case or change the nature of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.

1. Through the medium of this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 08.08.2013 so far his prayer for amendment has been partly disallowed. The petitioner filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the pleadings before the trial court. When the said application came for consideration, the learned trial court partly allowed the said application and rejected the amendment with regard to another part.

2. The said order has been challenged precisely on the ground that the trial court had not considered the pleadings of the parties in its right perspective and had committed illegality. It is submitted that the application has been filed at a belated stage and rejected on that ground is illegal. The amendments which were sought to be incorporated were necessary for adjudicating the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff and the order rejecting the prayer is without any reasoning and substance. By rejecting his prayer, he has been prevented from taking substantial pleas by not allowing him to incorporate the amendments in paras ‘b’ and ‘c’ of his application.

3. Objections have been filed by the respondent, in which the respondent has raised the objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The respondent in his stated that the extending writ jurisdiction in the matter where the revision is impermissible would defeat the very object of the Amendment Act in the Code of Civil Procedure in light of the judgments in Rinkesh Singh Rakwal vs. Additional District Judge, 2016 (1) SLJ 419, Mushtaq Ahmed vs. State, 2014 KLJ 410 and also in light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajinder Shanker Patil, 2010 (8) SCC 329. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the learned trial court and interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not permissible as such powers under Article 227 are to be exercised very sparingly, carefully and in rarest of rare cases. The petitioner had challenged the sale deed in the suit executed by the Sardari Lal on 11.02.1989 in favour of the respondent/defendant and defendant has filed the written statements and issues have also been framed in the suit according to him, is time barred and Mutation No. 144 dated 06.06.1989 has also been attested in favour of the defendant. The said mutation was challenged by the petitioner but could not succeed and after having failed on all fronts against the said mutation, the petitioner filed the suit and during the pendency, he filed an application seeking amendment on 31.01.2012 to which he filed objections and after having considered the petition as well as objections and grounds taken up, the amendment application was partly allowed and the petitioner was allowed so far as amendment in Para ‘a’ was concerned, however, amendments incorporated in paras ‘b’ and ‘c’ were rejected as its effect was to change the very nature of the suit. The learned trial court while dealing with the application, observed as under:

“The plea which the plaintiff is now trying to incorporate in the plaint by means of Para b is definitely inconsistent with the plea which has already been taken by him in the shape of Para 8 of the plaint, as such amendment to the extent of incorporating Para b in the plaint cannot be allowed, hence prayer to this extent is disallowed. So far as Para c which now the applicant wants to incorporate in the plaint. In this Para plaintiff/applicant submits that property in question is in possession of plaintiff and his ancestors for more than 12 yrs prior to filing of suit till date continuously and interruptedly to the knowledge of the defendant and hostile to him and defendant is not in possession of land in question at any point of time as such, plaintiff has become the owner of land in question by adverse possession.

Although, the amendmen