The proposed amendment to the plaint was allowed as it was essential for effective adjudication, clarificatory in nature, and did not set up a time-barred claim.

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. These are two revision petitions filed by the petitioners-contesting defendants to assail the order dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Court below, whereby, an application for seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed.

2. CR-560-2020 has been filed petitioner-Tej Paul Oswal, who was defendant No.5, before learned Court below and CR-944-2020 has been filed by petitioner-Bharatth Oswal, who was defendant No.11 before learned Court below.

3. The facts, as culled out, from the paperbook are that, initially, in the year 2009, contesting respondents-plaintiffs had filed a suit for mandatory injunction, thereby, seeking issuance of direction to the defendants to make necessary correction in the revenue record, by entering mutations of the land, as detailed in the head-note of the plaint, known as Oswal House, in favour of successors-in-interest of late Lachhman Dass and subsequent vendees-plaintiffs, who purchased the land vide sale deeds, as detailed in the plaint.

4. The contesting respondents-plaintiffs asserted themselves to be owner-in-possession of the suit property, which had been purchased by them from the predecessor, as mentioned in the plaint.

5. Only defendant No.5-Tej Paul Oswal and defendant No.11-Bharatth Oswal are the contesting defendants, whereas, the other defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. When the case was at the stage of the recording of the evidence, contesting respondents-plaintiffs Nand Kumar, Narinder Dev Avasthi and Harish Kumar filed their affidavits and Narinder Dev Avasthi was under cross-examination, the application for seeking amendment of the plaint was filed, wherein, the main relief sought by the respondents-plaintiffs was that on the basis of the ownership, they are entitled to be entered as owners in the revenue record and defendants No.1 to 3 may be directed to enter and sanction the mutation, in favour of the plaintiffs. Even, it was asserted that in paragraph No.8 of the plaint, they have claimed declaration, by virtue of the purchases made by them vide sale deeds, referred to in the plaint and mutations, on the basis of the said sale deeds, are liable to be entered into revenue record, but however, inadvertently, the relief of declaration could not be mentioned in the headnote as well as in the prayer clause of the plaint and accordingly, the relief sought was to this extent of making addition of prayer of declaration, on the basis of the purchases, so made, in the head-note as well as in the prayer clause.

6. However, the petitioners-defendants, in their respective replies, had raised preliminary objections, thereby, disputing the maintainability of the application and also that the proposed amendment was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The proposed amendment will change the basic nature of the suit, filed by the plaintiffs and prejudice shall be caused to the answering defendants, if the proposed amendment is allowed, which will result into multiplicity of the litigation. Besides the same, it is submitted that valuable right, which has accrued to the defendants, cannot be taken away, by filing an application for seeking amendment. Moreover, the suit was filed 8 years ago.

7. Also further, in the reply, it is asserted about the time barred relief, by virtue of amendment, cannot be allowed, as per law of land.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Court below had allowed the amendment application, while observing that relief of declaration has been discussed in paragraph No.8 of the plaint and as such, the plea of inadvertence, in seeking relief of decree of declaration, seems to be genuine.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the reply, so filed to the application before learned Court below, have also again submitted about the present application to be time barred and proposed amendment was within the knowledge of the respondents-plaintiffs and it will change the basic nature of the suit and it will amount to