Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana on behalf of revisionists and perused the record.

2. This is defendants’ revision against an order dated 18.3.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Court No. 4, Agra in Original Suit No. 818 of 2013 by which plaintiffs’ amendment application 34 Ka, alleging dispossession during pendency of suit, to amend the plaint so as to add the relief of mandatory injunction to restore possession to the plaintiffs as also to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month, has been allowed.

3. The necessary facts of the case are that Original Suit No. 818 of 2013 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants in respect of property shown in the plaint by letters A, B, C, D and E comprising land in Khasra No. 651 and Khasra Nos. 648, 649, 652 and 654, situated at Mauza Kakretha Mustakil, Tehsil and District Agra.

4. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs approached the District Administration. The District Administration passed order in favour of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the plaintiffs though were not in possession but were put in possession over the disputed property with the aid of District Administration, therefore, challenging the orders passed by the District Administration, Writ C No. 38708 of 2013 was filed by the revisionists which was allowed by order dated 12.8.2013 by holding that the District Administration had no authority to transfer possession in between private parties and, accordingly, direction was issued to restore the possession, as it existed prior to the order passed by the District Administration. It was also clarified that the order would be subject to final adjudication by a competent Court of law. Thereafter, the application of the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction came for hearing on which an order was passed on 17.2.2014 directing the parties not to raise any fresh constructions or change the nature of the property in suit as also not to create any third party interest.

5. Against the order dated 17.2.2014, the revisionists preferred First Appeal From Order No. 1037 of 2014 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 20.4.2015, by which, without interfering with the impugned order passed by the trial Court it was observed that the trial Court would proceed to dispose of the suit itself, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

6. Soon after direction was given by this Court to decide the suit, on 6.5.2015 an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents seeking addition of relief of mandatory injunction to restore physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs as also for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month on the ground that pursuant to the Writ Court’s order dated 12.8.2013 in Writ C No. 38708 of 2013, the possession had been transferred to the defendants and, therefore, the amendment in the plaint was necessitated.

7. By the impugned order, this amendment application has been allowed on the ground that it was necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties.

8. Sri Ramendra Asthana, who has appeared on behalf of the revisionists, has submitted that the transfer of possession had taken place admittedly in the year 2013, pursuant to the order passed by the Writ Court, but the amendment application has been filed after lapse of about 18 months and since there was inordinate delay in filing the amendment application and there was also a direction of the appellate Court to dispose of the suit itself within six months, the amendment, being highly belated, ought not to have been allowed. It has been submitted that a suit for permanent injunction has been converted into one for possession, which is not justified.

9. Sri Ramendra Asthana has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Mash