Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.

1. Through the medium of this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 08.08.2013 so far his prayer for amendment has been partly disallowed. The petitioner filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the pleadings before the trial court. When the said application came for consideration, the learned trial court partly allowed the said application and rejected the amendment with regard to another part.

2. The said order has been challenged precisely on the ground that the trial court had not considered the pleadings of the parties in its right perspective and had committed illegality. It is submitted that the application has been filed at a belated stage and rejected on that ground is illegal. The amendments which were sought to be incorporated were necessary for adjudicating the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff and the order rejecting the prayer is without any reasoning and substance. By rejecting his prayer, he has been prevented from taking substantial pleas by not allowing him to incorporate the amendments in paras 'b' and 'c' of his application.

3. Objections have been filed by the respondent, in which the respondent has raised the objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The respondent in his objections stated that the extending writ jurisdiction in the matter where the revision is impermissible would defeat the very object of the Amendment Act in the Code of Civil Procedure in light of the judgments in Rinkesh Singh Rakwal v. Additional District Judge, SLJ 2016(1) 419, Mushtaq Ahmed vs. State KLJ 2014 page 410 and also in light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajinder Shanker Patil, 2010(8) SCC 329. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the learned trial court and interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not permissible as such powers under Article 227 are to be exercised very sparingly, carefully and in rarest of rare cases. The petitioner had challenged the sale deed in the suit executed by the Sardari Lal on 11.02.1989 in favour of the respondent/defendant and defendant has filed the written statements and issues have also been framed in the suit according to him, is time barred and Mutation No. 144 dated 06.06.1989 has also been attested in favour of the defendant. The said mutation was challenged by the petitioner but could not succeed and after having failed on all fronts against the said mutation, the petitioner filed the suit and during the pendency, he filed an application seeking amendment on 31.01.2012 to which he filed objections and after having considered the petition as well as objections and grounds taken up, the amendment application was partly allowed and the petitioner was allowed so far as amendment in para 'a' was concerned, however, amendments incorporated in paras 'b' and 'c' were rejected as its effect was to change the very nature of the suit. The learned trial court while dealing with the application, observed as under:

"The plea which the plaintiff is now trying to incorporate in the plaint by means of para b is definitely inconsistent with the plea which has already been taken by him in the shape of para 8 of the plaint, as such amendment to the extent of incorporating para b in the plaint cannot be allowed, hence prayer to this extent is disallowed. So far as para c which now the applicant wants to incorporate in the plaint. In this para plaintiff/applicant submits that property in question is in possession of plaintiff and his ancestors for more than 12 yrs prior to filing of suit till date continuously and interruptedly to the knowledge of the defendant and hostile to him and defendant is not in possession of land in question at any point of time as such, plaintiff has become the owner of land in question by adverse possession.

Although, the amendment can be allowed at any stage, if it is really necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties, but the present suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2002 and this cannot be presumed that plaintiff was not aware of his legal rights at the time of presentation of the plaint. More so, if this amendment is allowed it definitely would change the basic nature of the suit, as such, this amendment cannot be allowed, hence amendment to the extent of para c which applicant wants to incorporate in the plaint is refused.

So, application of the plaintiff/applicant is allowed to the extent of amendment of original plaint, to the extent of title and to the extent para a after para 8 in the original plaint. Rest of para b and c which plaintiff wants to incorporate in the plaint is refused"

4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by the deceased Sardari Lal S/o Des Raj in favour of the defendant with regard to the land bearing khasra No. 65 min measuring 01 kanal 06 marlas, Khewat No. 16, Khata No. 94 situated at Barola, Tehsil, Akhnoor is illegal void and inoperative and sought its cancellation with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession over the land. The grounds on which the petitioner/plaintiff sought said relief was that the said land was under the occupation of Sardari Lal who was his great grandfather. The said land was ancestral coparcenary property, as such, deceased Sardari Lal was not competent to sell the land. The mutation was attested on the basis of aforesaid sale in favour of the defendant on 06.06.1989 vide Mutation No. 144 by Tehsildar Akhnoor which was challenged by his father and the case was remanded back to Tehsildar, Akhnoor. The said order was challenged by the defendant/respondent before the Additional Deputy Commissioner who vide order dated 28.04.1998 set aside the order of remand and the same was then challenged by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner in appeal but the appeal was dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner being the great grandson of deceased Sardari Lal having right in the property as the same is ancestral coparcenary and as the Darshan Lal had already sold the land more than the scale, therefore, the present suit. So it is clear from the pleadings of the plaintiff that the declaration and injunction has been sought on the ground that Sardari Lal had executed the sale deed in respect of the ancestral property and that he has sold the land beyond his scale. So the plea taken is with regard to the right of Sardari Lal to sell the land in question being ancestral property.

5. The written statements was filed by the defendant/respondent and contested the suit and on the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed following issues on 01.09.2003:

"(1) Whether the suit land is an ancestral coparcenary property of the plaintiff and deceased Sardari Lal (Vendor).OPP

(2) Whether the impugned Deed is illegal and void and as such, is not birding and operative viz-a-viz the rights of the plaintiff to the suit land OPP

(3) Whether the suit is in possession of the plaintiff even after execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the defendant OPP

(4) Whether the deceased Sardari Lal executed the impugned Sale Deed without any legal necessity and has executed the same only to meet his personal expenses for drinking and Gambling etc.

(5) Whether the present suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit OPD

(6) Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction If so, what is its correct valuation OPD

(7) Whether the present suit is time barred OPD

(8) Relief, if any to which the plaintiff is entitled. OPP"

6. After framing of issues, during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner/plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of the suit which was contested and objected by the defendant/respondent.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the amendment of the pleadings which reads as under:

"Amendment to Pleading-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 determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

9. Proviso to said rule makes it clear that the application for amendment cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence, the party seeking such amendment could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The provision related to amendment of pleadings gives power to the civil court to allow the parties to alter, amend or modify the pleadings at any stage. Provision for amendment of pleadings has been stated in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the court will allow amendment only if the amendment is necessary to determine the controversy between the parties. The purpose of this provision is to promote ends of justice and not to defeat the law.

10. The general rule is to allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real questions between the parties and while considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the court should not go into correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs. K.K. Modi and others, AIR 2002 SC 1003 [LQ/SC/2002/171] , the court stated that the amendment of the pleadings consists of two parts. In the first part, the word "may" gives discretionary power to the court to allow or disallow the amendment of pleadings and in the second part, the word "shall" gives obligatory direction to the civil court to allow the amendment of pleadings if such amendment is necessary for the purpose to determine the real question in controversy between the parties.

11. The primary objective for the court to allow the amendment of pleadings is to secure ends of justice and prevent injustice to other parties. Also, such amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The amendment of pleadings helps the parties to correct its mistakes in the pleadings. An application for amendment of pleadings cannot be granted when such amendment is not necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and when it leads to the introduction of a totally new case. In Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. vs. Ladha Ram and sons, AIR 2002 SC 3369 [LQ/SC/2002/957 ;] ">AIR 2002 SC 3369 [LQ/SC/2002/957 ;] [LQ/SC/2002/957 ;] , the Supreme Court held that defendant cannot be allowed to change the edifice of the case though in certain paragraphs of the written statement and to substitute the same by entirely different and new case. The amendment can also not been allowed when the plaintiff or defendant is negligent and when proposed alternation or modification is unjust. An application for amendment is to be refused when it changes the nature of the suit.

12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, now the question for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff could have been allowed by the learned trial court to amend the pleadings as contained in paras 'b' and 'c' of his application. So far as amendment with regard to the name was concerned, it was allowed. However, the learned trial court rejected the prayer in order to amend the pleadings by incorporating paras 'b' and 'c' as stated in the application. If we see the plea which is being taken by the plaintiff and which he intends to incorporate in the pleadings by way of amendment are not only inconsistent with the pleadings of the plaintiff but they are also introducing a total new case. As is evident from the above discussion, such amendments cannot be allowed which are inconsistent with the pleadings already taken.

13. In the plaint, the plaintiff has taken a plea that Sardari Lal was not competent to execute the sale deed in question, firstly, property being coparcenary and secondly, he had sold the land more than the scale. In the suit, the plea taken by the plaintiff is that the Sardari Lal executing the sale deed who was not competent because the sale deed was in respect of the ancestral property and he had sold more than the scale. However, in the application he seeks amendment to introduce a new case that Sardari Lal was disinherited by the father and his father had executed the Will in respect of his land in favour of his daughter in law, so by way of amendment, he is introducing a new case which is contrary to the pleadings of the plaint.

14. Similarly, the plea which the plaintiff is seeking to introduce by way of para 'b' is also inconsistent with the pleadings of the suit thus, both such pleadings cannot be allowed and amendment to that extent cannot be permitted. The trial court while dealing with the amendment application had given detailed reasoning for not allowing such amendments and same does not call for any interference.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find merit in this petition, as such, the same is dismissed.