Amendments to pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC should be allowed unless they change the nature of the suit or introduce time-barred claims, ensuring effective adjudication.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri. Shailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Rakesh Kumar Modanwal, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent Nos. 1/Bharat Lal & 2/Kishan Lal.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by respondent No. 4/Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.), Court No. 16, District-Pratapgarh, on an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") numbered as Paper No. 111Ga2 filed in a suit of perpetual injunction filed by Ram Shankar (predecessor in interest of the petitioner Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 and Sri. Shiv Mandal/petitioner No. 2) registered as Regular Suit No. 733/1997 (Ram Shankar and others v. Ram Naresh and others) and the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the respondent No. 3/Additional District Judge, Court No. 02, District-Pratapgarh in Civil Revision No. 24/2023 (Ram Shankar through LRs and another v. Ram Naresh through LRs).

3. By the order impugned dated 07.02.2023, the trial court rejected the application numbered as Paper No. 111Ga2. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.02.2023 is extracted hereunder:-

4. The revisional court vide impugned order dated 18.01.2024 dismissed the revision instituted by the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the trial court/respondent No. 4. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.01.2024 is extracted hereunder:-

5. Impeaching the impugned orders dated 07.02.2023 and 18.01.2024, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially the aforesaid suit was instituted seeking decree of perpetual injunction against Ram Naresh, who died during pendency of suit and thereafter, his sons namely Bharat Lal and Kishan Lal, who are private respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in this petition, were substituted and during pendency of the suit, the legal heirs of original defendant namely Ram Naresh executed an agreement to sale dated 20.05.2022 and on coming to know about the same, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was preferred thereby praying to amend the plaint including the relief clause as also impleading the persons in whose favour the agreement to sale was executed by the private respondents, namely Ram Achal Verma s/o Ram Kumar Verma and Ramdendra Nath Mishra s/o late Nanlal Mishra, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 07.02.2023 affirmed vide order dated 18.01.2024.

6. He further submitted that rejection of the application seeking amendment numbered as Paper No. 111Ga2 is not in consonance with the law on the issue as in view of the explanation under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, application seeking amendment ought to have been allowed in spite of the fact that trial proceeded in the matter for the reason that the fact regarding execution of agreement to sale came in the knowledge of the petitioners after commencement of trial. Prayer is to interfere in the matter allow this petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the side opposite submitted that the impugned orders dated 07.02.2023 and 18.01.2024 passed by trial court and revisional court, respectively, are not liable to be interfered with by this Court and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. He submitted as under:-

(i) The nature of suit in issue would be changed.

(ii) The petitioners have no right or tile over the property in issue.

(iii) The agreement to sale in issue is without possession, as such, the right remains with the defendants to the suit and second parties to agreement are neither necessary nor proper party.

(iv) The law with regard to impleading transferee pendente lite is settled and as per which, second parties (purchaser(s)) in the agreement to sale are not liable to be impleaded and the court concerned is having discretion to permit impleadment of transferee pendente lite and as such, the composite application seeking amendment in the plaint and impleadment of second parties to the agreement has rightly b