JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Karnal, vide which the application filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit on 20.01.2025 for permanent injunction and in the said civil suit, it had been stated in paragraph no. 1 that the plaintiff was the owner of land measuring 0B-11B comprised in khewat no.1000, khatoni no.1554, khasra no.11773/5466/2/1 (0-11) and khewat no.4144, khatoni no.6935 khasra no.5468/2 situated at Kasba Karnal, District Karnal, vide jamabandi for the year 2019-2020. It was further stated that defendant no.1 and 2 had, as per the case set up by them, purchased land measuring 50 square yards in the land measuring 0B-7B comprised in khewat no.990, khatoni no.1541, khasra no.11773/5466/2/2(0-7) situated at Kasba Karnal, District Karnal, vide jamabandi for the year 2019-2020. It is argued that the land of the defendants was completely different from the land of the plaintiff but since the defendants were trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and were also wanting to raise construction over the property of the plaintiff, the said suit was filed.

3. It is submitted that thereafter the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed and the injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff) and since after the passing of the said restraint order, the defendants had raised construction of a shop over the land of which the petitioner (plaintiff) was the owner and the defendants had no right and thus, the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to incorporate the said fact which had occurred during the pendency of the suit. It is argued that by virtue of the impugned order, the said application has been dismissed, although the amendment sought is necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 577. It is further submitted that the case is at the initial stage, as issues had not been framed at the time when the application was filed and till date issues have not been framed and thus, the trial has not commenced. It is thus prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2

4. Learned senior counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 (defendants No.1 and 2) has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld as the petitioner (plaintiff) by virtue of the impugned amendment wants to change the nature of the suit. It is submitted that a false plea has been taken by the plaintiff in the amendment application that the construction has been raised by defendants no.1 and 2 on the property belonging to the plaintiff, whereas the said construction has been raised over the land which belongs to defendants no.1 and 2. It is submitted that the amendment is neither necessary nor required for the adjudication of the case.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

5. 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 19.07.2025, vide which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed, is against law and deserves to be set aside for the reasons stated hereinafter.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner (plaintiff) had filed a suit for permanent injunction on 20.01.2025 and in the said s