Ujagar Singh, J. - (1.) THE Plaintiff and others revision petitioners filed a suit for declaration that they and Defendants -Respondents 2 and 3 are owners in possession of their respective shares of the land, bearing rectangle No. 11, Killa No. 8(8 -0), 13/1(7 -2), mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 1979 -80. situated at village Daroli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot, with the averments that the land was owned by one Santokh Singh adopted son of Khazan Singh. Said Khazan Singh mortgaged with possession the land in suit for Rs. 850/ - and mutation was sanctioned on 28 -9 -1924, Santokh Singh died and Defendant -Respondent No. 1 is his legal heir. Maghar Singh has also died and the Plaintiffs -Petitioners; Plaintiffs -Respondents 4 and 5 and Defendants -Respondents 2 and 3 have been in continuous possession of the suit land as mortgagees and now as owners, as more than the period of redemption has passed and the land has not been redeemed so far.
(2.) DEFENDANT -Respondent No. 1 denied possession of the Plaintiffs and others and took up the plea that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata Pending the suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint was filed, seeking amendment for relief in the alternative for possession as owners of the suit land, on the ground that Defendant -Respondent No. 1 has alleged that she was in possession of the suit land and therefore, in case the Court finds Defendant -Respondent No. 1 to be in possession, a decree for possession be awarded Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges that amendment has been sought only with the possibility of possession being found in favour of Defendant -Respondent No 1. The Petitioners are not to lead any evidence on any controversy and once amendment is allowed, the case be argued even on the evidence produced by the parties on the issues already framed, particularly when no evidence will be required as a result of amendment of the plaint.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for Defendant No. 1 urges that the amendment will change the nature of the suit at the fag end of trial of the suit and therefore, the amendment should not be allowed. He has cited the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastave v. Km. Jyoti Sahoy and another : A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 462, and Ramsaran Mandar and Ors. v. Mahabir Sahu : A.I.R. 1927 P.C. 18. In Panchdeo Narain's case (supra), in the plaint an admission was made; in as much as the Plaintiff described himself in the plaint as a son of the uterine brother of one person and subsequently the Plaintiff wanted amendment, seeking deletion of the word "Uterine" from the plaint. The amendment was allowed, but in revision the High Court set aside this order. The apex Court held that the High Court ought not to have interfered in its revisional jurisdiction, as in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute, the amendment of the pleadings was necessary.;