An amendment to a plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be allowed only if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and if it is not necessary or relevant for the proper disposal of the suit, it can be rejected.

JUDGMENT

G.C. Garg, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 9.9.1993 of the trial court whereby application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession, restraining the defendants permanently from interfering in his possession or taking possession of the property in dispute as detailed in para 1 of the plaint. It was also prayed that if the defendants succeed in taking possession of the property in dispute from the plaintiff, then a decree for possession of the said property may also be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit viz. when the suit was at the stage of plaintiffs evidence, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. By way of amendment, the plaintiff prayed for replacement of averments made in para 2 by a new para. The application was resisted by the defendants. Trial court on a consideration of the matter, as noticed above, dismissed the application. This is how the plaintiff has filed the present revision.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit by averring that he is owner in possession of the property detailed in para 1 of the plaint and that defendant No. 1 was in dire need of a residential house and about one and a half years before the filing of the suit, he asked the plaintiff to sell the property in dispute to him but proposal of sale could not be given effect to as the plaintiff was asking for a little higher amount. It was further averred that defendant No. 1 is a strong and influential person and he is trying to usurp the property and to take possession thereof forcibly and illegally. It was on these premises the plaintiff prayed for a decree for permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession as noticed above.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement. Averments made in para 2 of the plaint were vehemently denied. It was pleaded that the plaintiff has suppressed and concealed the real and true facts from the court. In fact the plaintiff had agreed to sell the land in dispute to the defendants for a consideration of Rs. 8000/- ten years before the filing of the written statement and the entire amount of sale consideration had been paid by the defendants and the latter were put in actual physical possession of the property on the basis of an agreement to sell the property in dispute which was only an oral agreement. After taking possession of the property the defendants raised certain construction thereon, planted trees and have been residing therein since then. It was further pleaded that initially the defendants raised kacha construction and later on pacca room were constructed by them in the year 1981-82. It was also pleaded that during the month of January, 1986 the plaintiff was allured by the tremendous increase in price of the property on account of development of colonies and he thus approached the defendants to pay more money. The matter was amicably settled between the parties on the intervention of respectables of the village and as per the settlement arrived at, the plaintiff agreed to give an area double the area in dispute to the defendants on payment of Rs. 32,000/- in all. The amount of Rs. 8000/- already paid by the defendants on account of sale consideration of the property in dispute in view of the oral agreement was agreed to be deducted from the total sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/- and thus a sum of Rs. 24,000/- more was to be paid to the plaintiff. The defendants further pleaded that acting on the latter settlement the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 4000/- to the plaintiff for purchase of the stamp paper for execution of the sale deed and the stamp paper was in fact purchased by the plaintiff which is in his possession now. But later on the plaintiff became more greedy and in order to get wrongful gain of the matte