An amendment of the plaint may be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code even if it introduces a new cause of action or changes the nature of the suit, if the amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of suits and the defendant can be compensated for any delay or inconvenience caused by the amendment by an award of costs.

1. This is a revision petition filed by Hari Bachan Singh defendant against the order dated October 22, 1973, of the Senior Sub-Judge, Ropar, whereby he permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint on payment of Rs. 500.00 as costs.

2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that Harcharan Singh son of Sardar Harnam Singh resident of Kharar. District Ambala (now District Ropar) died in the year 1951 leaving Shrimati Suraj Kaur, plaintiff No. 1, a widow and Harbhajan Singh, Plaintiff No. 2, a son by her and another son Hari Bachan Singh, defendant by another wife Jaswant Kaur. After his death, mutations in respect of the land owned by Harcharan Singh in various villages were entered in favour of the two sons in equal shares. Suraj Kaur filed four appeals against those orders before the Collector, Ambala relying on a will executed by her husband in her favour and these appeals were dismissed. She went up in revision to the Commissioner, Ambala Division and her revision petitions were accepted on August 20, 1957 and the Commissioner made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner that mutations in favour of Suraj Kaur should be sanctioned. When this matter came up before the Financial Commissioner. Punjab, the parties came to a settlement and it was agreed between them that the entire estate of Sardar Harcharan Singh be divided into five parts. Harbhajan Singh plaintiff and Hari Bachan Singh defendant were to get two shares each and Suraj Kaur, the widow, was to get one share. In accordance with the statements of the parties the Additional Financial Commissioner passed order on April 9, 1958 that the mutations of the property in dispute shall be entered in accordance with the shares mentioned in the compromise arrived at between the parties after the Deputy Commissioner had evaluated and divided the property between the claimants. The Deputy Commissioner, Ambala was appointed to personally evaluate the property, divide the shares and transfer them to the different shareholders. The present civil suit was filed by Shrimati Suraj Kaur and her son Tikka Harbhajan Singh on June 27, 1961 for a declaration to the effect that they are owners and heirs entitled to the property in dispute as detailed in the heading of the plaint and out of the said property, plaintiff No. 2 alone is entitled to the property given at item No. (h) of the heading of the plaint and that Hari Bachan Singh, defendant No. 1, who is not the son of Sardar Harcharan Singh deceased, has no right title or interest in the property and a decree for permanent injunction restraining him from getting the property in dispute partitioned and from interfering with their possession may be issued against him. It was alleged in the plaint that they were in possession of whole of the suit property and hence this suit for declaration was filed. They averred that Sardar Harcharan Singh was a Jagirdar and according to the rule of primogeniture, which governed the Cis Sutlej Jagir property, in matters of succession, the entire property devolved on the plaintiff No. 2, who is the eldest son. They alleged that the statements of the parties dated April 9, 1958 and the orders of the Financial Commissioner dated April 9, 1958 and January 12, 1959 were, illegal, against law and without jurisdiction and were not binding on them. The suit was contested by Hari Bachan Singh defendant on various grounds. He denied the allegations made in the plaint and stated that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property and the suit was not maintainable in the present form. The issues in this case were framed on October 24, 1961 by the Senior Sub-Judge. Ferozepur, Issue No. 1 reads as follows :-

"Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and if not, what is its effect."

After recording the evidence of the parties, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property and the suit was maintainable in the present form.

3 It appears that d