Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are permissible if they do not change the fundamental character of the suit and aim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief :

''(i) Set-aside the order dated 14.9.20222 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Jalalabad, Shahjahanpur in Original Suit No. 26 of 2018 (Rajeev Kumar and others v. Kashinath @ Kallu and others) (Annexure 01 to his petition) and order dated 1.12.2023 passed by the Learned District Judge, Shahjahanpur in Civil Revision No. 28 of 2023, Computerized No. UPSH010038782023, (Kashinath @ Kallu and others v. Rajeev Kumar and others) (Annexure 02 to this petition) and may dismiss the amendment application, Paper No. 14Ka, of the plaintiffs/respondents (Annexure 5 to this petition).''

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents instituted Original Suit No. 26 of 2018 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalalabad, Shahjahanpur against the defendants-petitioners for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from obstructing the right of way of the petitioners by putting a lock on the door lying between the two houses. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents was that the plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of the property in dispute. The defendants-petitioners who are the sons of the plaintiffs' uncle (tau) were permitted by the plaintiffs-respondents to reside in the house of plaintiffs-respondents. For last some time, the defendants-petitioners became dishonest and they locked the main gate for which they were reprimanded by the plaintiffs-respondents not to repeat the same but later on when the defendants-petitioners tried to lock the doors again, the suit was filed. It is also stated in paragraph No. 22 of the plaint that the plaintiffs-respondents have a right to cancel the license and get the possession of the house in dispute. This suit was filed on 29.4.2018. On 8.6.2020, an application for amendment was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the plaint being application Paper No. 14ka. By the aforesaid application, it was stated by the plaintiffs-respondents that during the pendency of the suit on 22.3.2020 the defendants-petitioners have laid foundation for constructing a wall obstructing the right of way of the plaintiffs-respondents, therefore, the license granted by the plaintiffs-respondents to the defendants-petitioner was revoked and they were directed to vacate the house which the defendants-petitioners refused and therefore, amendment was sought in the pleadings as well as in the relief clause adding a prayer for possession and eviction of the defendants-petitioners. Necessary amendments in the plaint were also sought by the plaintiffs-respondents.

4. The defendants-petitioners appeared in the suit and filed written statement on 18.5.2022 denying the plaint averments. On 18.5.2022, the defendants-petitioners also filed objection to the amendment application Paper No. 14 ga. The trial Court by its order dated 14.9.2022, allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents. Against the order dated 14.9.2022, passed by the trial Court, the defendants-respondents filed Civil Revision No. 28 of 2023. The aforesaid revision was dismissed by the District Judge, Shahjahanpur by judgment and order dated 1.12.2023, hence, the present petition.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment as sought cannot be allowed as the nature of the suit gets changed. The suit was initially filed for injunction and now by amendment the plaintiffs-respondents wants to convert the suit into suit for possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of the Apex Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and others, AIR 2022 SC 4256 and Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha and others, AIR 2020 SC 3322. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph No. 70 of the judgment