All necessary amendments for determining the real questions in controversy should be allowed, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. Delay alone cannot be a ground to disallow the prayer for amendment, especially when the Written Statement had not been filed by the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have impugned the Order dated 28th of December, 2021 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff/Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aishmuqam (hereafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein for seeking amendment of the Plaint in the Suit captioned as 'Shabir Ahmad Rather & Anr. v. Abdul Rahman Wani & Anr.'.

2. It is stated that a Suit for declaration and consequential relief for injunction, titled above, was filed by the Plaintiffs/ Respondents herein, wherein they sought declaration to the effect that they be declared as owners in possession of land measuring 02 Kanals and 07 Marlas, comprising Survey No. 404 situated at Manzigam, Pahalgam, with a further prayer for issuance of a decree of permanent and prohibitory injunction, thereby restraining the Defendants/Petitioners herein from interfering into their peaceful possession over the Suit land and also restraining the Defendants/ Petitioners from dispossessing the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein from the Suit land. The Defendants/Petitioners herein caused their appearance before the learned trial Court and filed an application in terms of Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking modification, cancellation and variation of ex-parte interim Order dated 7th of September, 2018, directing for maintenance of status quo on spot.

3. It is further stated that in order to prolong the litigation, the Plaintiffs/ Respondents herein laid a motion under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) before the learned trial Court, thereby seeking amendment of the Plaint. The Defendants/Petitioners herein filed detailed Objections to the aforesaid application, however, the learned trial Court, vide Order dated 28th of December, 2021, allowed the application filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein for amendment of the Plaint.

4. After the application was disposed of by the learned trial Court, the Plaintiffs/ Respondents herein are stated to have filed the additional Plaint with additional facts which were in contradistinction to the original Plaint and the proposed amended Plaint, but the learned trial Court, without applying its mind, has taken the same on record. It is also stated that the learned trial Court, after passing of the ex-parte Order dated 7th of September, 2018, directing for maintenance of status quo, has not disposed of or even heard the arguments in the application filed by the Defendants/ Petitioners herein in terms of Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

5. Faced with the above position, the Petitioners have assailed the aforesaid Order dated 28th of December, 2021 passed by the learned trial Court, inter alia, on the ground that the learned trial Court has committed a grave illegality, as the application filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) did not spell out as to what was sought to be amended, besides the so-called proposed amended Plaint was not in consonance with the law governing the field. It has further been submitted that the amendment sought to be entertained was apparently time barred by the law of limitation, as the sale deed that was sought to be challenged was executed in the year 1982 and that the father of the Plaintiffs/ Respondents herein was the executant of the said sale deed. It is also stated that the Petitioners have been rendered defenceless as the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein are filing altogether different pleadings before the learned trial Court.

6. Mr. Syed Irfan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has permitted the amended Plaint to be brought on record, which was not in consonance with the application seeking amendment of the Plaint and even the amended