JUDGMENT :

Lok Pal Singh, J.

Instant civil revision, preferred under section 115 of CPC, is directed against the order dated 11.10.2019 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun in O.S. No.82 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been allowed.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff/revisionist filed a suit for decree of mandatory injunction, cancellation of sale deed and lease deed against the respondents/defendants. The respondents/defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement. The trial court fixed the suit for 05.07.2017 for framing of issues. However, on the said date, the respondent/defendants moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking certain amendments in the written statement. Revisionist/plaintiff filed his objections to the amendment application. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court, by the order impugned, allowed the amendment application with costs of Rs.1,000/-. While doing so, the trial court recorded finding that the amendment sought by the defendant is formal in nature and does not change the nature of suit and it also does not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the entire material brought on record.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist/plaintiff would submit that while allowing the amendment application the trial court has not considered the fact that the amendment application has been filed by the respondents/defendants at a belated stage and allowing the same would led to start the trial de novo. He would further submit that the defendant has set up a new case and has claimed title over the property and has taken inconsistence and contradictory pleas. He would further submit that the trial court has allowed the amendment in a very casual manner. To buttress his arguments, he would place reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Devlopers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84. He would refer to paragraphs 63 and 64, which read as under:-

“63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:

(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;

(2) whether the application for amendment is bonafide or mala fide;

(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;

(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and

(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.

These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

64. The decision on an application made under Order VI Rule 17 is a very serious judicial exercise and the said exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner. We can conclude our discussion by observing that while deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments."

5. Before any discussion, it would be apt to discuss Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., which is as follows:-

“17. Amendment of Pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determinin