Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - Petitioner has assailed order dated 07.08.2014 passed by Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.), Amritsar vide which application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been accepted.

2. Respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant (petitioner) from alienating double storey house consisting of two rooms, one store, latrine bathroom on the ground floor along with staircase and four rooms on the first floors bearing private number 1, total area measuring 100 sq. yd., having defined boundaries.

3. At the time of filing of suit for permanent injunction, the relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement was not accrued to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, stipulated date for execution and registration of sale deed expired. According to the plaintiff, she has appeared before the office of Sub- Registrar on the target date for performance of bilateral obligation arising out of agreement to sell dated 29.07.2010. She claimed that the defendant (petitioner) did not turn up on the stipulated date and during the pendency of the suit the relief or possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.07.2010 has accrued to her. An application for amendment of the plaint in view of subsequent event was sought to be prayed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.

4. Another application for amendment of the earlier application has been moved on the ground that due to inadvertence the relief sought for amendment in the first application could not be mentioned and, therefore, necessity arose to incorporate amendment in the application of amendment made earlier. Amendment was sought to be made in the headnote, para 4 by way of adding paras 4-A and 4-B, in para No.5, para No.9 and in the prayer clause.

5. According to plaintiff the amendment sought to be introduced does not in any way change the cause of action and also would not change the real controversy between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not discernible from the order as to which of the application has been allowed by the trial Court. Learned counsel stated that if the amendment application is allowed, it will run contrary to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as the amendment could be allowed only in respect of pleadings and not of the application.

6. An amendment in the pleadings is to be liberally construed so as to consider real dispute between the parties and to give decision more satisfactorily on the basis thereof. The proviso to the Rule to some extent curtails absolute discretion of the Court to allow the amendment at any stage, however knowledge and due diligence are considerations on which bona fides of the party has to be tested in order to prevent frivolous application. The object of the Rule is that the Court must try the merit of the case and allow all amendments which may be necessary for determination of real controversy between the parties. In this regard reference can be made to (2007) 6 SCC 737 Ram Chandra Shakharaman Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale and AIR 2006 SC 1647, Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi.

7. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is in two parts. First part is discretionary and leaves it to the Court to order amendment in pleading. Second part is imperative and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for determining real issue between the parties. All amendments are to be allowed which satisfy the aforesaid two conditions. The conditions are that the amendment sought would not be unjust and results in prejudice against the opposite party which would not be compensated in terms of cost or would deprive the opposite party of a valuable right which has accrued to him with the passage of time. The second condition is that the amendment is perceived to be necessary by the Court for the purposes of determining the real issues between the parties. Amendment can be