This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 23.4.2010, passed by learned Sub Judge-1, Chaibasa, in Title Suit No 12 of 2008, dismissing the application filed on behalf of plaintiffs- petitioners under order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( C.P.C.) for amendment of plaint.

2. The relevant facts in short are as follows. The petitioners filed the said suit for perpetual injunction on 25.11.2008 along with a petition under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for temporary injunction. Defendant no. 2 filed written statement along with rejoinder to the injunction petition on 30.4.2009. The prayer for injunction was refused by the learned trial court on 14.5.2009. According to the petitioners, before they could prefer appeal against the said order refusing to grant injunction, petitioners were dispossessed in the last week of June, 2009. However, the appeal was filed in this Court on 21.7.2009 being M.A. No. 187 of 2009 along with a petition under section 144 C.P.C. for restoration of possession. The issues were framed on 5.9.2009, by the trial court. The said appeal was dismissed on 27.11.2009, against which, petitioners filed S.L.P. in Supreme Court on 9.3.2010. According to the petitioners, as the appeal was dismissed and no order of restoration was passed, the amendment petition in question was filed by the petitioners on 20.3.2010, which was dismissed on 23.4.2010, against which, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioners moved Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. (s) 4424-4425 of 2010 against the said order dated 27.11.2009, which was dismissed on 11.5.2010.

3. Mr. Vikash Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that as the petitioners we redispossessed after rejection of prayer for injunction, it became necessary to amend the plaint seeking decree of possession; restoration of possession; decree for rendition of accounts and decree for declaration that the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 25.9.2002 are binding on respondent no. 2. He further submitted that in the orders passed in injunction matter, petitioners were found in possession and it was also found that they were doing the mining work. But they have been dispossessed taking advantage of the refusal of the prayer for injunction. He also submitted that petitioners did not file petition for amendment of plaint immediately when they were dispossessed in the last week of June, 2009, as they were advised to prefer appeal against the order refusing injunction, which could be filed only on 21.7.2009. Then after the appeal was dismissed by this Court and no order was passed on the prayer for restoration, the amendment petition in question was filed in view of the subsequent events, which took place during pendency of the suit. He also submitted that in the plaint and the injunction petition, threat of dispossession was already pleaded. He, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the prayer for amendment of plaint may be allowed. He relied on the judgements reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498-Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh, (2003) 7 SCC 219-Rajesh D. Darbar Vs. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni, (2002) 2 SCC 256-Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Ranbir B. Goyal and (2002)7 SCC 559-Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu.

4. Supporting the impugned order, Mr. Chada, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the trial commenced on 5.9.2009 when the issues were framed and the amendment was sought thereafter. He further submitted that the amendment sought will fundamentally change the nature and character of the suit and will introduce a new cause of action defeating the limitation as prescribed under the law. He lastly submitted that at best petitioners can file a fresh suit if the cause of action is not barred by limitation. He relied on the judgments reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409-Vidyabai Vs. Padmalatha, and (2009) 10 SCC 84-Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy &