The main legal point established in the judgment is that no amendment of the pleadings can be allowed which has the effect of prejudicially affecting the other parties.

M.L. Singhal, J. - Rajinder Singh Yadav filed suit for permanent injunction against Devender Kumar Yadav, his wife Kamlesh Yadav and son Mahesh Yadav restraining them from interfering with his possession of plot ABCD and from interfering with the construction being raised by him thereon. It was alleged in the plaint that he purchased this plot from one Jai Dayal vide registered sale deed dated 31.7.1980. Since then, he has been continuously in possession of the plot as owner. Defendant Devender Kumar Yadav is the real maternal uncle of the plaintiff-Rajinder Singh Yadav. Apart from that they are married to two sisters, Smt. Kamlesh Yadav is the maternal aunt of the plaintiff, as also his sister-in-law i.e., his wifes sister. Mahesh Yadav is his cousin being his maternal uncles son and Mahesh Yadav is his nephew being his sister-in-laws son. While constructing their house, defendants had borrowed Rs. 30,000/- from the plaintiff. Out of that amount, defendant Devender Kumar Yadav had repaid him Rs. 22,000/- Rs. 8,000/- was still outstanding against Devender Kumar Yadav. Plaintiff wants to raise construction on this plot ABCD, which the defendants do not want him to do because of strained relations between them, reason being non-return of Rs. 8,000/- by defendant No. 1 to him (Rajinder Singh Yadav).

2. Defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that the so called sale deed was only a benami transaction. Plaintiff never paid any consideration for the sale deed nor was he present at the time of registration of the sale deed. Plaintiff is a near relation of the defendants. As such, only the plaintiffs name was incorporated in the sale deed. Defendants have raised the house on this plot at huge expense. Defendants have been in possession since the day of purchase.

3. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff got his plaint amended on 11.9.1998. Amended plaint was filed which was a suit for permanent injunction and possession. To this amended plaint, defendants put in written statement on 15.12.1998 in which they took the plea that they are in possession of the plot in suit being prospective vendees because there was an agreement for the sale of plot for Rs. 27,000/-, out of which Rs. 22,000/- was paid to the plaintiff through his father-in-law Inder Lal. It was also pleaded by the defendants that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of agreement and they were still ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,000/-. To the said plea taken in written statement, plaintiff filed replication denying the aforesaid plea of the defendants. On 14.5.1999, defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement, whereby they wanted to set up counter claim for specific performance on the basis of aforesaid agreement of sale, pleaded by them in the amended written statement. Through counter claim they wanted to set up the counter claim for specific performance of the agreement to sell the plot for Rs. 27,000/-, out of which, the plaintiff has received Rs. 22,000/- through his father-in-law. In this application for amendment, it was alleged that they had already pleaded that agreement to sell in their earlier written statement. Through this amendment they wanted to set up counter claim for specific performance. In the counter claim, they wanted to set up all the ingredients which are required to be pleaded in a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell.

4. Vide order dated 20.8.1999, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rewari declined this application for amendment of the written statement. While declining this application for amendment, it was inter alia observed by the Civil Judge that in the moving of this application for amendment, there was delay of more than 7 years.

5. It is this order dated 20.8.1999, which has been called in question by Devender Kumar and others defendants through this revision.

6. I have heard the learned