Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Shri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. This is the plaintiff’s revision seeking to set aside the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mainpuri in Suit No. 203 of 2012 (Ram Das v. Mukesh Chandra and others). By the impugned order the plaintiff’s amendment application seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for prohibitory injunction on 16.4.2012 which was registered as suit No. 203 of 2012. The defendant-respondents herein filed their written statement on 3.5.2012 and thereafter the Court framed issues on 3.7.2013. In the plaint map to the north of the plaintiff’s shop it was mentioned as shop of Shishu Pal Yadav and to the south it was mentioned as vacant land of Betey Lal. The plaintiff felt that the shop in question had not been adequately described in the plaint map therefore he filed an amendment application on 23.9.2013 and sought an amendment in the map by mentioning prior to the shop of Shishu Pal Yadav the words “drain and constructed over the drain” and in the southern part of the map he wanted an amendment that prior to the words vacant land of Betey Lal the words “shop and” be added. The plaintiff had also sought amendment in paragraph 1 of the plaint which reads as under:

^^1&;g fd okn dh /kkjk 1 dh 12 oha iafDRk esa 'kCn x;k gS **ds okn 'kCn tks fd ls igys 'kCn** rFkk ftldh lhek iwjc edku jke lju o eqds'k pUnz izfroknh if'pe&lMd] mRrj&ukyk o ukyk ds Åij fufeZr nwdku f'k'kqiky ;kno nf{k.k&nqdku o [kkyh txg Nsnkyky vkfn** rgjhj Qjek;k tkosA^^

4. The amendment application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The defendant-respondents filed their objections to the amendment application. It is also stated that earlier the plaintiff had filed a composite amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 as well as the amendment application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. which was opposed by the defendant-respondents as not maintainable and, therefore, the plaintiff withdrew the composite application on 29.4.2013 and thereafter, filed the amendment application dated 23.9.2013. The records show that after the withdrawal of the composite application on 29.4.2013 the trial Court framed issues on 3.7.2013 as would be clear from the order sheet of the same date, Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application (hereinafter referred to as the affidavit). As already noted above, issues were framed by the trial Court prior to the filing of the amendment application on 23.9.2013. The issue No. 1 was framed by the trial Court as to ‘whether the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the property demarcated in the alphabets ABCD?’ In the plaint another issue framed was with regard to valuation as to ‘whether the suit was properly valued before filing of the amendment application?’ The issue No. 2 regarding the adequacy of valuation was decided by the trial Court vide its order dated 20.8.2013, holding that the suit was properly valued and thereafter the order was passed that the paper No. 6Ga-2 for temporary injunction be put up on 23.9.2013 for disposal/evidence.

5. The contention of Shri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the revisionist is that the proposed amendment does not in any manner change the nature of the suit nor does it take away any right which may have vested in the defendant in the interregnum as no such right vested in the defendant. Reference has been made to the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 337, wherein the Supreme Court has quoted paragraph 63 of its earlier judgement in the case of Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, 2009 (10) SCC 84, which reads as under:

“20. In Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, this Court once again considered the scope of amendment of pleadin