The amendment of the plaint was allowed as it was necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case and would not change the nature of the suit.

, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana, vide which the application moved by the petitioner herein for amendment of the plaint has been declined.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner has moved an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that inadvertently the boundaries of the house in dispute were wrongly typed/shown. According to the petitioner, the boundaries as per agreement of sale detad 11.9.1992 on the basis of which suit was tiled, are as follows: "east: Surjit West: Pritam Kaur North: Krishan Kumar Kaushal South: Street of Railway Road. "

3. The petitioner sought to amend the suit by amending the heading and prayer clause of the plaint by adding the boundaries as given above. It was averred in the application that the original agreement was on the file and there was a technical mistake in the boundaries of the plaint although the names of all the persons around the house shown are the same, but were shown in different directions wrongly.

4. It was further the case of the petitioner that Smt. Bachni wife of the defendant in her cross-examination had admitted that the plan attached with the plaint was correct.

5. The application was contested by the defendant-respondent by taking a preliminary objection that it was not maintainable under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the said provision has been omitted and the application for amendment could only lie prior to start of trial.

6. The case of the respondent was that the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded long back and the case was fixed for arguments. Therefore, the present petition has been filed in order to fill up lacuna in the case. It was further averred that the application was an abuse of process of law.

7. On merit, the stand taken by the defendant-respondent was that he had denied the execution of agreement of sale and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amended the plaint. It was also the case of the defendant-respondent that the amendment sought would change the nature of the suit and would cause prejudice to him.

8. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties rejected the contention of the defendant-respondent that the present application was not maintainable in view of the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC by taking note of the fact that the said amendment would not apply to the pleadings which came into existence prior to amendment. However, the said application was ordered to be rejected on the ground that in the written statement the defendant-respondent had taken a clear stand that the boundaries of the house/property have been wrongly shown by the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant had denied the execution of agreement to sell regarding his house.

9. The learned trial Court also took note of the evidence led by the petitioner that he was aware of the boundaries when the evidence was being led, and on that basis came to the conclusion that if the amendment sought is allowed, the trial would start de novo and therefore, dismissed the application. The authority relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner i. e. Darshan Kumar V/s. Jagdish Lal Sehgal (1998-1) 118 P. L. R.420 was distinguished by the trial Court on the ground that the facts in that case were different.

10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and find that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed.

11. It is not understood as to how the mere change of boundaries would start the trial de novo. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that in view of the amendment, no new evidence has to be led and in fact the application is to correct the error in description of the property in dispute without doing anything further.

12. It is not in dispute that the suit has been filed on the basis of an agreement to sell and, therefore, there can be n