The power to allow amendments should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice between the parties, and amendments that are necessary for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed if they do not change the basic nature of the suit.

DARSHAN SINGH, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khamanon, vide which the application moved by the respondents-defendants no.1 to 9 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.') for amendment of the counter claim has been allowed.

2. Plaintiffs-petitioners have filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into their peaceful possession over the property shown with letters 'X' and 'Y' detailed and described in the head note of the plaint and also from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the aforesaid land and further from making any encroachment on the plea that they are owner in possession of the property described above. Whereas, defendants have no right, title, interest, concern or connection therewith.

3. Respondents-defendants no. 1 to 9 contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that under the garb of the suit, petitioners-plaintiffs intend to encroach upon the passage comprised of Khasra No. 19//28, 20//23, 23//30, 31, 24//29 situated on the eastern side of the land of the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that they have, in-fact, encroached upon the portion of said passage and included that in their land and this suit has been filed to protect their illegal possession on the portion of the passage.

4. Along with the written statement, respondents-defendants no.1 to 9 also filed the counter claim for grant of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to vacate the encroached portion of the aforesaid land.

5. During the pendency of the suit, respondents-defendants no. 1 to 9 moved an application for amendment of the counter claim. It was pleaded in the application that they had already sought the relief to direct the plaintiffs to vacate the portion of the passage encroached upon by them. But, inadvertently they could not claim the relief to restrain the plaintiffs from encroaching upon the remaining portion of the passage as the threats were continuing and by way of amendment they wanted to add the following wordings in para no.9 of the counter claim:-

“The plaintiffs are further threatening to encroach upon the remaining portion of the passage after the filing of the suit. The said threats are continuing one and provides continuous cause of action to the counter claimant to file this counter claim.”

6. They also wanted to add the following lines at the end of the prayer clause:

“and the plaintiffs be permanently restrained from encroaching upon the remaining portion of the passage in question and the counter claim be accepted with costs”

7. It was further pleaded that the said relief could not be earlier sought due to inadvertence. The said amendment will not affect the nature of the suit. In case the application is allowed, they will not lead any other evidence.

8. The said application has been contested by petitioners-plaintiffs on the grounds inter alia that the application is misuse and abuse of the process of law. By way of proposed amendment, defendants wants to set up a new case which would amount to denovo trial. It was further pleaded that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit as the defendants wants to add the new relief in the counter claim. With these pleas, they pleaded for dismissal of the application.

9. Learned trial Court on appreciating the contentions of the parties allowed the application for amendment of the counter claim moved by the respondents-defendants no. 1 to 9 vide impugned order dated 03.03.2016. Hence this revision petition.

10. I have heard Mr. Aman Kumar Saini, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and have carefully gone through the paper book.

11. Initiating the arguments, he contended that the suit has reached at the stage of arguments. Practically, the trial had already concluded. At this stage, he contended that respondents-defendants cannot be allowed to file the new c