JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff's revision directed against the order of the learned Addl. Munsif, Ajmer City (West) Ajmer by which his application for permission to amend plaint was rejected. 2. Stated in short, the relevant facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction against the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer for restraining it from interfering with his proprietory and possessory rights to and interest in the plots in dispute described in the plaint and further from putting the said plots to public auction or to any other use. It was also prayed that the defendant be also directed to remove the boundary marks fixed by it on the plot in dispute. The plaintiff claims his title and possession over the plots in dispute. Simultaneously, with the filing of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application for temporary injunction, his application was allowed and the defendant Urban Improvement Trust was directed to maintain status quo. The defendant resisted the suit. However, the temporary injunction issued by the court below was disobeyed, the plots in disputs were put to public auction and was purchased by Natha Singh and Preen Prakash. The plaintiff thereafter moved an application under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C to weak leave to amend the plaint in view of subsequent events of the sale of the plots in dispute by public auction etc. This application was dismissed by the learned Munsif on the ground that the proposed amendments would alter the nature of the suit and also the cause of fiction. Aggrieved against the said order, the plaintiff has come up in this revision. 3. The non-petitioners despite service of notice did not put appearance and as such the revision was beard ex-parte in their absence. I have beard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. It was streneously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the changed subsequent events, the proposed amendments had become necessary. 3. The non-petitioners despite service of notice did not put appearance and as such the revision was beard ex-parte in their absence. I have beard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. It was streneously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the changed subsequent events, the proposed amendments had become necessary. It was argued that the defendant Urban Improvement Trust disobeyed the temporary injunction issued by the learned Munsif and put the plots in dispute to sale by public auction It was submitted that the court must allow a party to amend the pleading for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on (1) Sardar Harbaehan Singh v. Sardar Harbhajan Singh and others, A.I.R. 1975 Punjab and Haryana 205 . I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel. 5. I need not stress that under order 6 Rule 17 C P.C. the court has ample powers to permit a party to amend the pleadings as are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. One of the reasons for introducing the provision of amendments in the Civil Procedure Code is to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings as far as possible between the parties. The main object to allowing the amendments is to get the rights of the parties (sic settled) and to avoid multiplicity of suits where the dispute can be settled in the suit already instituted without unfairmeans and without injustice to the other side. Now where subsequent to the institution of the suit, events happen, which give the plaintiff a new cause of action for the relief claimed the plaintiff in such a case should be generally allowed to amend the plaint by moulding it in an appropriate manner. Such amendments should be allowed in order to shorten the litigation and attain the ends of justice. 6. In (2) Laxmi and Company v. A.R. Deshpandey, A.I.R. 1973 Supreme Court 171 , it was laid down that where the situation stands changed on account of the altered circumstances and the original relief has become in appropriate on account of subsequent events, the court should take notice of these subsequent events and permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint in appropriate manner. 7. 7. In the instant case in hand, the defendant U. I. T. disobeyed the temporary injunction, conducted the public auction to sell property in dispute and thus, tried to interefere with the rights and interest of the plaintiff which he possesses over the disputed land. In view of these changed circumstances occasioned on account of the subsequent events, the plaintiff should have been permitted to amend the plaint as prayed by him. It may be recalled that the case is at the initial stage. No issues have been framed so far. The proposed amendments do not cause any prejudice to the defendant U.I.T. The proposed amendments are necessary to shorten the litigation and to avoid the multiplicity of suits between the parties.For the reasons discussed above this revision should be allowed. The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Munsif Ajmer City (West) Ajmer dated 23.7.1981 dismissing the plaintiff's application under order 6 Rule 17 C. P.C. is set aside The learned Munsif is directed to allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint as prayed by him. He will thereafter proceed with the trial of the suit.Revision allowed. *******