Amendments should be allowed for effective adjudication unless they create an entirely new case or disadvantage the opposite party.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.07.2019 whereby application filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for amendment of the plaint at the stage of rebuttal has been allowed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein filed a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction averring therein that one plot measuring 0 kanal 10 marlas gair mumkin comprised in Khewat and Khatauni No.139/194 and Khasra No.242/359 (in two kitas) measuring 0-2 marlas gair mumkin garha khad and 0-8 gair mumkin gitwara total measuring 0-10 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Karewari, Tehsil and District Sonepat was purchased by plaintiff-respondent No.1 from one Suraj Mal son of Bihari Mal resident of Karewari, Tehsil and District Sonepat on 28.09.1994 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-in the presence of witnesses and an affidavit duly attested by the witnesses and the Notary Public was executed and physical possession of the property was delivered to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and since then the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has become owner in possession of the suit property. It was further averred that the defendants were interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and hence the suit for permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 (petitioner No.1 herein) filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. In para 5 of the preliminary objections it was stated that Smt. Baldei (petitioner No.1 herein) had purchased a plot measuring 150 sq. yards to the extent of 5/8th share comprising in Khewat No.253, Khata No.285, Plot No.359 (0-8M) gair mumkin situated with the revenue estate of village Karewari, Tehsil and District Sonepat as per the Jamabandi for the year 2010-2011 vide registered sale deed No.2883 dated 25.06.2014 for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,04,000/-. A copy of the sale deed was also appended with the written statement. It was further averred that even the actual physical possession of the suit land was handed over to petitioner No.1. Similar stand was taken by defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their written statement. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, an application was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 for amendment of the plaint. It was stated in para 2 of the application that at the time of filing of the suit there was a threat from the defendants and plaintiff respondent No.1 therefore could not file the suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement to sell/affidavit/panchayatnama dated 28.09.1994 and now the property had been sold by Om Parkash, Shakuntla, Santra, Suresh and Ramesh to the defendants and that Naresh son of Raghbir was threatening to sell the property standing in his name to someone else. Hence, it was necessary to amend the title and para Nos.1 to 6, 9 and prayer clause of the plaint. In the application the amendment sought was to change the title from that of permanent injunction to a suit for declaration and symbolic possession by way of specific performance with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The entire plaint was sought to be changed and as was the prayer. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order the said prayer has been allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant-petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the defe