JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction on 04.03.2020 and prior to the written statement having been filed, the petitioner had moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC dated 10.08.2020 for amendment of the plaint in order to incorporate the subsequent events which had occurred during the pendency of the suit. It is further submitted that since the defendants had forcibly taken possession of the premises in question on 07.07.2020, thus, the petitioner/plaintiff in order to incorporate the said fact, filed the application for amendment, which is necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case. It is argued that the amendment application was filed within a period of one month and five days from the date of the incident i.e. on 07.07.2020. It is submitted that the trial Court has however wrongly dismissed the said application and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is argued that the delay in the proceedings in any manner would prejudice the petitioner and the respondents would have the right to file a written statement to the amended plaint.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned order has been rightly passed and deserves to be upheld. It is further submitted that earlier a suit for permanent injunction was filed, which is now sought to be converted to a suit for possession, which should not be permitted.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and finds that the present revision petition is meritorious and deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 deserves to be set aside for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 577 had observed that all the amendments which are necessary for determining the main question in controversy between the parties should be allowed and at the stage of allowing the amendment, the merits of the amendment are not required to be considered. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“13. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

xxx xxx xxx

17. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case.

xxx xxx xxx 

Since the Court has entered into a discussion into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment, we have no other option but to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Since it is settled law that the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment, the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law as observed by this Court in Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another , (2002) 7 SCC 559.”

6. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction agai