R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.)THIS is a defendant's revision and has been directed against the order dated 12.1.1999, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, who, allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.)SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner. One Shri Durga Ram was the owner of the property. He executed a mortgage in relation to that land in the year 1938 in favour of Sunder Dass and Udey Ram for a consideration of Rs. 800/-. Later on Shri Durga Ram executed a sale deed in favour of the mortgagees for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Resultantly, Shri Sunder Dass and Udey Ram became the owners of the property. The sale was for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The co-sharers of the land which was sold by Shri Durga Ram filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. That suit was decreed in the year 2000 Bikrami equivalent to 31.3.1943. The case set up by the defendant-petitioner is that Rs. 2,000/- has been deposited and by virtue of that deposit they had become the owners of the property in view of the decree. S/Shri Amar Nath and Gainda Ram were co-sharers. They have filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. Thereafter, the heirs of Sunder Dass alias Shankar Dass and Udey Ram filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners of the property because the property was not redeemed by Shri Durga Ram within the stipulated period of 30 years. The defendant-petitioners took the stand that they have become the owners of the property by virtue of the decree dated 31.3.1943 on deposit of Rs. 2,000/- and there is a prima facie proof with regard to the payment of Rs. 2,000/- in the revenue record to this effect. The defendant- petitioners have also filed a separate suit that they are owners of the property on the strength of the decree dated 31.3.1943. That suit is pending. The heirs of S/Shri Shankar Dass alias Sunder Dass and Udey Ram filed the present suit for declaration that they are the owners of the property by virtue of the sale in favour of Shri Shankar Dass and Udey Ram. During the pendency of the suit they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. praying in the alternative that the decree dated 31.3.1943 allegedly obtained by Shri Amar Nath and Ganda Ram, is illegal because the decree-holders had not deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in pursuance of that decree. This application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was allowed by the trial Court for the reasons given in para Nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned order which can be quoted in the following manner :-
"Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the present amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. Further that the abovesaid facts sought to be amended were not within the knowledge of plaintiff and the same came to his knowledge after the filing of plaint/suit by Dharam Dev. Ld. counsel for the defendant has strongly opposed the application and has alleged that a new case is sought to be set up by the plaintiff by the proposed amendment and it gives the go-bye to the earlier case pleaded in the plaint. The proposed amendment changes the whole nature of litigation and is also barred by time and as such the same cannot be allowed. He has relied upon 1998 Civil Court Cases 515 titled as Kammaankara Kuria Kosa Thomas v. Shri Ram Saw Mills and others.

5. A perusal of the file shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff to the effect that previously Durga Dass son of Barmanand who was the owner of the land in dispute and who mortgaged the same with Sunder Dass and Udey Ram for Rs. 800/- in the year 1960. Neither Durga Dass nor any of his legal heirs could get the suit land redeemed within the statutory period of 30 years and therefore, after the death of Sunder Ram and Udey Ram the plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 and defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 are joint owners of the suit land in respect of their respective shares. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff have alleged that it has come to their knowledge that the suit land was sold by Shri Durga Ram son of Shri Barmanand to Sh. Sunder Dass and Udey Ram vide registered sale deed dated 31.3.1942 adjusting the mortgage amount of Rs. 800/-. Later on a preemption suit was filed by Amar Nath son of Kamal Krishan and Ganda Ram son of Anant Ram against Shri Sunder Dass and Udey Ram which was decided on 28.4.2000 Bikrami and it was ordered that the plaintiffs of that suit shall pay Rs. 2000/- plus costs to the above named Sunder Dass and Udey Ram on or before 28.6.2000 and in case of non-payment the suit would stand dismissed. Said Amar Nath and Ganda Ram failed to make payment as abovesaid within the stipulated period and the suit of the plaintiff Amar Nath and Ganda Ram was virtually dismissed and thus Amar nath and Ganda Ram had nothing to do with the land in question. The plaintiffs have sought to add their relief of declaration on these facts and to challenge the mutation No. 2470 dated 19.1.1983 sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1 and for joint possession of the same and permanent injunction. The plea of permanent injunction, joint possession, setting aside the mutation has already been taken by the plaintiffs in the present suit and declaration plea is merely being clarified, the facts as stated above sought to be amended by the plaintiffs would only clarify the stand already taken by the plaintiffs in the present suit. It would neither change the nature of the suit nor alter the cause of action nor would give a go-bye to the earlier pleadings rather the plea taken by the plaintiffs would be more clarified by the proposed amendment. I also do not find force in the contention of Ld. counsel for defendant that the amendment is barred by time. The amendment as already discussed above is merely to clarify the stand already taken by the plaintiffs and no new cause of action or prayer has been taken by the plaintiffs where it could be said that the amendment is barred by time. Rather the proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties and for just decision of the case. The authority cited by Ld. counsel for defendants is not applicable to the present case at hand being based on different facts and circumstances. Rather it is well settled now that all the amendments which are necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit must be liberally allowed. The defendant in the present case can be adequately compensated with costs. Accordingly, I allow the present application for amendment of plaint subject to costs of Rs. 800/-. Now to come up on 9.2.1999 for filing amended plaint."

Not satisfied with the order dated 12.1.1999 the present revision has been filed.

(3.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.