Amendment of pleadings is allowed if necessary for adjudication and does not cause injustice to the other side, as affirmed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 30.10.2018 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering in the peaceful, lawful and exclusive possession of the plaintiff-respondent over one shop measuring 16 sq. yds. fully described in the plaint. It was averred in the plaint that the defendant-petitioner was owner in possession of the suit property and that vide the agreement to mortgage dated 15.06.1999 the defendant-petitioner mortgaged the shop in dispute for a total sum of ?29,000/- and the plaintiff-respondent was put in actual physical possession of the said shop. It was further averred that the defendant-petitioner had agreed to register the regular mortgage deed on 14.06.2001 after receiving the remaining mortgage amount. An injunction was sought against the defendant-petitioner from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent. Written statement was filed by the defendant-petitioner wherein the agreement to mortgage dated 15.06.1999 was admitted, however, it was stated that the same was not registered. It was further stated that the limitation of the agreement expired on 14.06.2002 and that the plaintiff-respondent had promised the defendant-petitioner that he would vacate the shop in dispute on demand of the defendant-petitioner. The contents of the remaining paragraphs were simpliciter denied. Vide order dated 27.05.2016 status quo order passed by the Trial Court was made absolute. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent that on 31.05.2016 he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit property and thereafter he was embroiled in multiple litigations and it was only on 17.07.2018 that he had filed the present application for amendment of the plaint incorporating the plea of possession as well as for incorporating all the facts qua the dispossession and the action taken by the plaintiff-respondent as also the litigation that ensued post dispossession. Reply was filed to the said application and vide the impugned order dated 30.10.2018 the amendment application was allowed. Hence, the present revision petition by the defendant-petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend that the trial had commenced and even the application for amendment had been filed on 17.07.2018 though it was the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent himself that he was dispossessed on 31.05.2016. Learned counsel would further contend that the suit was at the stage of the plaintiff-respondent's evidence and one of the witnesses, namely, Amrit Lal (PW1) was also cross-examined, therefore, the application ought not to have been allowed. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and that it has been filed to delay the proceedings.

4. Per contra the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent would contend that in the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner there was no denial of the mortgage deed though unregistered. Infact, the possession of the plaintiff-respondent was also admitted. In para 3 of the legal objections of the written statement it is the case set up by the defendant-petitioner himself that the plaintiff-respondent had requested to hand over the possession of the suit property, however, he failed to do so. Learn