JUDGMENT

R. P. SETHI, J. — Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant filed suit against the respondents praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining them, their agents and subordinates from demolishing the compound wall in the suit scheduled property. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents-defendants were alleged to have entered the appel¬lant’s house unauthorisedly and demolished the compound wall on northern, eastern and western sides. They were also alleged to have damaged the gate in the entrance.

4. In view of the subsequent developments, the appellant filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 for the amendment of the plaint for adding paras 8 (a) to 8(f) in his plaint. The trial Court rejected his prayer and the revision petition filed against that order was dismissed by the High Court vide order impugned in this appeal, mainly on the ground that the amendment, if allowed, would result in introducing a new case and cause of action. It was further held that as the appellant was seeking recovery of damages, the amendment could not be allowed as it would allegedly change the nature of the suit. It was also ob¬served that the amendment sought for,