Amendments to pleadings should be allowed when they are necessary for just adjudication and do not alter the fundamental nature of the suit, ensuring the resolution of real questions in controversy without prejudicing the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

1. Defendants are in revision aggrieved of order dated 26^th of September, 2022 whereby the amendments sought by the plaintiffs in the plaint stands allowed.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as the defendants and the respondents as the plaintiffs.

3. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration claiming themselves to be the legal representatives of Sh. Nihal Singh, their mother namely Smt. Saroj being his daughter and thus entitled to his estate. The plaintiffs sought decree of declaration to the effect that Mutation No.2697 dated 17^th of January, 1987 sanctioned in favour of the defendants is wrong, illegal, null and void, inoperative and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. Further sought decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and from dispossessing them forcibly and illegally from the suit land and further from alienating the suit land.

4. By way of proposed amendment, the plaintiffs seek to amend the plaint incorporating following amendments:

“a. That words “mother of the plaintiffs” requires to be written under words “Sarla” in pedigree table duly shown in para no.1 of the plaint.

b. That word "co-" is required to be prefixed before the words "owner in possession of agricultural land" in paragraph no. 2 of the plaint.

c. Besides it, words "to the extent of ½ share i.e. 128 Kanal 9 Marla out of aforesaid total land ad-" between words "187/203" and "measuring 257 Kanal 19 Marla" in the same para no. 2 of the plaint.

d. That following line requires addition in sub-para i) of prayer clause of the plaint and after words .....declaration to the effect that:-

"plaintiffs are co-owners in possession to the extent of 1/24th share each in the share of abovesaid Nihal Chand duly stated in para no. 2 above and consequently,"

e. That the figure "1" is required to replaced with figure "2" in sup-para ii) of "Prayer" clause of the plaint.”

5. The aforesaid application filed by the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants claiming that the amendments sought lack bona fide. It was further claimed that the typographical/clerical mistakes claimed in the application in fact go to the roots of the suit and have effect of changing the nature of the suit. The application filed by the plaintiffs stands allowed by the Additional Civil Judge holding that the same are imperative for the just decision of the case on merits.

6. Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the amendment made in the prayer clause shall lead to alteration in the nature of the suit. His main grievance is against the amendment allowed to be made in the prayer clause. He asserts that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming themselves to be owner in possession and now at the stage of leading rebuttal evidence, they have been allowed to alter the nature of the suit. He relies upon law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others , (2006) 12 SCC 1 and Usha Balashaheb and others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others , (2007) 5 SCC 602 .

7. Per contra, counsel representing the respondents/plaintiffs submits that from the perusal of the plaint as a whole, it is evident that the amendment sought was owing to the fact that some typographic mistakes crept in the plaint, which need to be corrected by way of amendment. She further submits that merely for the reason that amendment has b