The main legal principle established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings should be allowed if they are necessary for determining the real issue between the parties and do not result in prejudice against the opposite party.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 15.09.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Samana vide which the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 14.10.2015 following order was passed:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffspetitioners, pursuant to the sale deed dated 05.05.1989, the plaintiffs have led evidence by examining one Vimal Kumar Jain (PW-4), wherein he has specifically stated that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs was of 7 Marlas of land. He has also specified the boundaries of the plot. Sale deed has been exhibited as Ex.PW4/1. Pursuant to the sale deed (Annexure P-3), even if Khasra number has been mentioned in the plaint, the measurement of plot of 7 Marlas is required to be defined along with the boundaries and this amendment for correct decision of the suit could have been made at any stage of the trial.

Notice of motion for 19.11.2015. Passing of final order by the trial Court shall remain stayed in the meantime."

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of sale deed dated 05.05.1989 having purchased the suit land from Janak Modi wife of Davinder Kumar. The khasra numbers were shown in the plaint in respect of suit property with reference to jamabandi for the year 2010-11. Plaintiffs also pleaded that they were recorded as owners in possession of the suit property in the revenue record viz. khasra girdawaries and have been shown to be in actual cultivating possession. In the sale deed, dimensions of the property have been mentioned. Sale deed has already been exhibited on record as Ex.PW-4/1 i.e. in the statement of Vimal Kumar Jain as PW-4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial of the suit has reached to the stage of rebuttal evidence (if any) and arguments. By way of proposed amendment, the plaintiffs/petitioners sought to incorporate dimensions of the suit property as shown in the sale deed which has already been exhibited on record. Petitioners claimed the proposed amendment to be an elaboration of facts in order to project the case in a better way. It is settled principle of law that all bona fide amendments can be allowed.

5. Learned counsel by relying upon Satguru Sri Jajit Singh Ji vs. Gurjeet Singh @ Harcharan Singh and others , (2006) 2 RCR(Civ) 71; Balbir Singh vs. Kashmiri Lal , (2006) 4 RCR(Civ) 456; Anant Ram vs. Hans Raj and others , (2012) 5 RCR(Civ) 609; Narinder Singh vs. Manjit Kaur,2010 157 PunLR 324 and Sajjan Kumar vs. Ram Kishan,2015 13 SCC 89 contended that the amendment in question for incorporation of particulars of land can be allowed even at the belated stage as the omission in mentioning the dimensions was not such by which plaintiffs were to gain anything illegal.

For elaboration of pleadings without leading any further evidence would be in consonance with the requirement of the case and that would facilitate the Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the amendment cannot be allowed at this fag end of the trial as it would change the nature of the suit and would cause material prejudice to the defendant. He relied upon Kamaljit Singh vs. Smt. Swarn Arora , (1998) 2 RCR(Civ) 562 and Arya Mittar and Anr., vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar Goel,2010 39 RCR(Civ) 246.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. Perusal of precedents cited by learned counsel for the respondent would not cover the controversy in issue. Kamaljit Singh's case was in respect of the facts where the proposed amendment was aimed to change the nature of the suit and the same was held to be an act of filling lacun