V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision is directed against order dated 2.8.2000 whereby application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. By the proposed amendment, plaintiff sought to clarify description of the property in order to meet the objection taken by the defendants in the written statement. Trial Court dismissed the application by saying that the suit has been filed in regard to property No. ER-140 but by the proposed amendment, possession is being sought of property No. ER-140/1 and suit with regard thereto has become barred by time. Hence this present civil revision.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, I am of the view that the order under revision is not sustainable in law. Petitioner filed suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act giving details of the property. The site plain describing the property was also enclosed with the plaint and made part of the pleadings. In the written statement filed by the contesting defendants, it was alleged that they are owners of property No. ER-401/1 and tenancy of the plaintiff being in regard to property No. ER-140, suit 'against them is not maintainable. In order to clarify the description of the property, plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to incorporate property No. ER-140/1 in the heading of the plaint, relief and body of the plaint wherever property No. ER-140 was mentioned. Trial Court in dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint failed to take into consideration that the plaintiff in the plaint has not only described the property by number but by boundaries. Site plan of the tenanted premises was also filed along with the plaint. By the proposed amendment, plaintiff is not seeking in substitute or add something to it but the property remains the same, description of which has already been given in the plaint. It is only the number of the property which is being sought to be clarified by way of amendment of the plaint. The question of limitation will come only if the relief is claimed with regard to some additional property which was not originally included in the suit. Since the suit continues to remain with regard to the same property, the proposed amendment was in the nature of clarification of the pleadings and by this clarification, no prejudice was going to be caused to the defendants. The suit is at the initial stage and evidence of the plaintiff is yet to concluded. It these circumstances, the amendment sought should have been permitted by the trial Court. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed, order under revision set aside and trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint. Defendants, however, shall be permitted to file written statement to the amended plaint and shall be at liberty to take all legal objections available to them. No costs. Revision allowed.;