JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition under Section 115, CPC has been filed against the order dated 13.4.92 passed by the then Additional Munsif No. 1, Bikaner in C.O. Suit No. 346/83 by the plaintiff petitioner, whereby her application under O. 6, R. 17, CPC for amendments prayed for was dismissed. 2. This is seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the defendant non-petitioner No. 1. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties, perused the impugned order along with the record available specially with reference to the pleadings of the parties and the interim orders passed from time to time and considered the same carefully. 4. Before embarking on the merits, brief facts giving rise to the petition may be usefully noticed. The plaintiff's pleadings were that she is the owner of the `Bara' (enclosure) described in Para No. 2 of the plaint and the defendant No, 1 Magan Mal's house is situate on its south-eastern side. The plaintiff obtained permission from the defendant-respondent No. 2, Municipal Council, Bikaner (Presently under challenge at different stages) but the defendant No. 1 had an eye on the land of the `Bara' since long and hence when the plaintiff started constructing a wall on its southeastern side, the defendant illegally opened a door in his northern wall abutting the southern side of the plaintiff's `Bara'. The plaintiff continued construction work and the defendant No. 1 instituted a suit No. 395/1981 thereby seeking an injunction against the plaintiff, in the Court of Munsif, Bikaner pleading that the `Bara' was a part of his house and he was in use and occupation of the same as owner for more than last 30 years, and also obtained ex parte injunction against her construction which, on being challenged from the side of the present plaintiff, was vacated and the appeal there against too met with no success. Lastly, the defendant's suit was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution and the same was never challenged. In the meanwhile, the defendant No. 1 also opened one more aperture in his northern wall. 5. Lastly, the defendant's suit was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution and the same was never challenged. In the meanwhile, the defendant No. 1 also opened one more aperture in his northern wall. 5. The defendant No. 1 continued obstructing the plaintiff from raising construction on her south-eastern side of the `Bara' without any legal right and, therefore, decree for injuncting the defendant No. 1 not to obstruct construction wall on her south-eastern side of the `Bara' and restraining him from opening any door, window or aperturers in his northern wall resulting in obstruction in construction on the southern side of the `Bara' and also to order closure of the door and apertures already opened, was sought for. 6. The defendant No. 1, did not dispute his suit No. 395/1981 having been so dismissed. He inter alia pleaded that he had purchased the disputed land of `Bara' from Bhoora Ram on 6.4.46 and he was in its possession since then and so the land belonged to Daya Ram and his successive heirs and transferees and, lastly, he was in its use and occupation openly and as an owner for more than 30 years thereby disputing the right, title and interest of the plaintiff besides her use and occupation on the same. She wants to grab the disputed land and also close her door, apertures and windows existing in his northern wall. 7. The plaintiff had moved an application for grant of temporary injunction under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, CPC and, on 30.1.84, the trial Court passed an order thereby ordering the defendant No. 1 to desist from obstructing in construction of four walls of the disputed 'Bara' and as well as getting an iron-gate fitted infront of the defendant's gate abutting the sourthern side of the `Bara'. The plaintiff was not allowed to open iron gate and also opened new gate, ventilators and aperturers in the northern wall and raised new constructions and consequently, an application for wilful disobedience of the Court's order was moved before the trial Court which was accepted vide its order dated 15.9.84 and the defendant No. 1 was injuncted to close the newly constructed door and aperturers (ventilators) opened on the disputed `Bara' and remove unauthorised construction there from and the plaintiff was allowed to put up an iron net on the previously existing gate of the defendant, abutting the Bara. Being aggrieved, defendant No. 1, came to High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 424/ 84 which was decided on 11.7.86 thereby allowing the petition, setting aside the temporary injunction in the mandatory form since an enquiry on the original application to wilful disobedience of the original order under O.39, R. 2-A CPC was under investigation and a temporary injunction order thereby restraining the defendant No. 1 from opening any new gate and apertures in and raising new construction on the suit premises was ordered to be issued and a status-quo as existing on the day was ordered to be maintained. 8. The plaintiff-petitioner moved an application purporting to be under O. 6, R. 17 read with Section 151, CPC on the ground that the defendant non-petitioner No. 1, in spite oi temporary injunction having been issued against him, wilfully disobeyed the same and had raised disputed constructions on the disputed premises and besides a new door, ventilators and apertures were opened abutting the disputed premises. Thus, defendant non-petitioner No. 1 had encroached upon the disputed property and also raised the disputed constructions during the pendency of the suit and because of such" subsequent developments and change in respect of the suit property, it was requested that the plaintiff maybe allowed to amend the plaint thereby permitting him to make relevant amendments in the plaint inserting amendments in regard to removals encroachments so made and removal of trespass upon the same besides restoration of the possession of the suit property which was taken during the pendency of the suit. Thus, a status-quo as prevalent at the time of suit, having been so disturbed and a change having been made in regard to the suit property and possession thereof the amendment was prayed for. 9. This was resisted to by the defendant mainly on the ground that it would result in making out a new and different case which would cause prejudice to the defendant and the same ought not to be allowed. 10. The learned Munsif vide his impugned order, holding that the premises for will tantamount to change of nature of the suit and, therefore, the application was rejected and hence this revision. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner as well as defendant non-petitioner No. 1, considered the legality and propriety of the impugned order. 12. 10. The learned Munsif vide his impugned order, holding that the premises for will tantamount to change of nature of the suit and, therefore, the application was rejected and hence this revision. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner as well as defendant non-petitioner No. 1, considered the legality and propriety of the impugned order. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned trial Court failed to consider the merit of the application in its right perspective overlooking the fact that the non-petitioner No. 1 had wilfully flouted the temporary order dated 30.1.84 about non-obstruction in the construction of walls by the plaintiff besides fitting of an iron-gate in the southern wall and besides the defendant also encroached upon the disputed land and raised some construction, besides opened a new gate as well as ventilators towards the suit premises abutting the same and he was also not obeying the subsequent order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in revision petition. As the report of the Sale Amin dated 20.9.84, who was deputed by the trial Court to remove unauthorised constructions so raised by the defendant, clearly revealed that some unauthorised encroachment was attempted to be removed but, in the meanwhile, a stay order dated 19.9.84 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 298/84 was produced and consequently the Sale Amin could not carry out the work of demolition fully. Therefore, it has further been argued that the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against defendant No. 1 thereby ordering for and restraining from raising any construction on the disputed premises besides, creating any additional burden on the same by way of opening new gate, apertures and ventilators etc. and the closure of the disputed gate was also sought for and a temporary injunction was issued by the trial Court on 30.1.84. 13. Defendant No. 1 in spite of disobeying the temporary order, took undue advantage of the situation and has trespassed upon the suit premises and has also opened new gate, ventilators and apertures abutting the suit premises. This is necessitated for the purposes of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 13. Defendant No. 1 in spite of disobeying the temporary order, took undue advantage of the situation and has trespassed upon the suit premises and has also opened new gate, ventilators and apertures abutting the suit premises. This is necessitated for the purposes of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Therefore, the learned trial Munsif took an erroneous view of the aforesaid developments holding that the nature of the suit would be changed in case the amendment sought for is allowed and thus failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not allowing necessary amendments. As a result, the plaintiff will be unnecessarily forced to enter into to face multiple litigations which is not warranted. The defendant non-petitioner No. 1 is continuously taking undue advantage by abusing process of Court and, therefore, when the dispute mainly related to the suit premises and the amendment sought for relates to the developments which came into being subsequent to the institution of the suit by the plaintiff and during the pendency of the present suit and, therefore, defendant non petitioner No. 1 who had also initially claimed his title and possession on the suit premises brought a suit for injunction against the plaintiff and the same having been dismissed, admittedly on 10.5.82, is again asserting his title and possession over the disputed premises and this dispute amongst present litigating parties can justifiably be determined in the original suit and it will not substantially change its nature and it would never prejudice defendant non-petitioner No. 1. 14. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the defendant non-petitioner No. 1, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. D.L.F. Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2324 , argued that there is no error of fact or law warranting any interference by the revisional Court under Section 115, C.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the scope of Section 115, C.P.C., held : "The position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction under S. 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by the High Court in the proceedings for specific performance of the agreement in question. Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to the case in hand. The words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" as used in this clause do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may, in our view, relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. The High Court does not seem to have adverted to the limitation imposed on its powers under S. 115 of the Code. Merely because the High Court would have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the question of continuing stay of the reference proceedings pending decision of the appeal, could hardly justify interference on revision under S. 115 of the Code when there was no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Additional District Judge in his manner of dealing with this question. It seems to us that in this matter the High Court treated the revision virtually as if it was an appeal." 15. Therefore, the learned counsel for defendant non-petitioner No. 1 has maintained that this revision petition is not maintainable on any score since the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the revision petition vide impugned order. 16. It seems to us that in this matter the High Court treated the revision virtually as if it was an appeal." 15. Therefore, the learned counsel for defendant non-petitioner No. 1 has maintained that this revision petition is not maintainable on any score since the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the revision petition vide impugned order. 16. Presently, as already detailed above, it is to be noted that the plaintiff-petitioner brought a suit for permanent as well as mandatory injunction against defendant non-petitioner No. 2 and also obtained a temporary injunction under which the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 was restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and was also restrained from causing any obstruction in raising four walls on the suit premises and an iron-gate was also ordered to be allowed to be fitted by the plaintiff at the disputed site whereat the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 had opened the disputed gate abutting the suit premises. The defendant non-petitioner No. 1 did not obey the order and instead he did not allow the plaintiff-petitioner to fix up an iron-gate at the disputed site and besides he also did not allow the plaintiff to raise construction and lastly opened another gate as well as ventilators, apertures abutting the suit premises and also raised new construction on the suit premises for which an application under the provisions of O.39, R. 2-A, C.P.C. for wilful disobedience of the order was moved and consequently such disputed constructions were ordered to be demolished by the trial Court. However, such order was challenged by way of filing civil revision petition, before this Court and, since original petition filed under O. 39, R. 2-A, C.P.C. was still under adjudication and, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to order that the status-quo as existing on the date of dismissal of the revision petition, as above, be maintained and the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 was further restrained from raising new construction as well as opening of new apertures, doors, windows, ventilators etc. abutting the suit premises. abutting the suit premises. In the circumstances, presently, as is the application and prayer of the plaintiff, the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 has clearly flouted the temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court and has also encroached upon the suit premises in respect of which defendant's suit for permanent injunction was already dismissed earlier on 10.5.82 and so when during the pendency of this suit, the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 has encroached upon the disputed premises and has deprived, as alleged, the plaintiff-petitioner from the possession and also again, in spite of dismissal of his suit earlier, disputed the title of the plaintiff besides raising and maintaining the disputed constructions thereby substantially changing the situation at the site as existing at the time of institution of the suit, in case the amendment sought for is disallowed it will force the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit thereby giving undue advantage to the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 to main illegal and unauthorized possession and claim over the suit premises which will cause again injustice to the plaintiff-petitioner. Therefore, when all these subsequent developments took place during the pendency of the suit and the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 has taken undue advantage during the pendency of the suit thereby changing the situation as existing on the date of institution of the suit by the plaintiff, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Besides, whatever be the merits of the dispute, it prima facie appears that the plaintiff being in possession of the suit premises, was resisting the act of the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 who was time and again resorting to acts of opening of new gates, ventilators, windows etc. abutting the suit premises thereby advancing his claim over the suit premises and he had succeeded to certain extent and in case the amendment sought for is disallowed, it will tantamount to further giving premium for his wrongful act which would never meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the disputed premises being the same and the plaintiff claiming his right, title and interest over the disputed premises besides her possession over the same, has sought the amendment thereby making an amendment to the effect that a part of suit property measuring 40.75 sq. Therefore, the disputed premises being the same and the plaintiff claiming his right, title and interest over the disputed premises besides her possession over the same, has sought the amendment thereby making an amendment to the effect that a part of suit property measuring 40.75 sq. yards has been encroached upon by raising constructions thereon by the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 and new windows, apartures and water-scuppers having been opened towards the suit premises abutting the same, the plaintiff be allowed to seek relief for demolition and removal of the disputed constructions as well as for closure of the ventilators, windows and apertures etc. and accordingly relief clause relating to the amendment sought for has also been sought to be amended. Besides, a relief for possession and grant of mesne-profits at the rate of Rs. 20/- p.m. for unauthorised use and occupation by the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 has also been sought for to be added. 17. In this view of the matter, it cannot be disputed that the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 brought a suit for temporary injunction in respect of the suit premises against plaintiff-petitioner and lastly the same was dismissed on 10.5.82, it was never challenged by way of revision petition. Besides, all these disputed and subsequent developments took place during the pendency of the suit. 18. In this view of the matter, though the general principles is that the rights of the parties must be determined as existing on the date of the action and not on the basis of rights which accrue after the institution of the suit, however, where it is shown that the original relief claimed has, by reason of subsequent change of circumstances, becomes inappropriate, the Court may depart from this general principle, as was also held by this Court in the decision rendered in Sobhalal v. Bheroo Lal, ILR (1951) 1 Raj 254. 19. Similarly, if has also been held by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amritlal N. Shah v. Alla Annapurnamma, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 9 that it is now well settled that in proper cases the Court is entitled to take note of the subsequent events and grant relief to the parties accordingly, if by so doing it can shorten litigation and best attain the ends of justice. It was further held that this power may be exercised even by the Court of appeal as an appeal is only in the nature of a re-hearing. 20. In this view of the matter, since the learned counsel for the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 has relied upon decision of this Court rendered by Hon'ble G. S. Singhvi, J. in Hanumant Singh Rawat v. M/s. Rajputana Automobiles, (1993) 1 WLC 625 (Raj) in which the Hon'ble Judge while referring to a catena of case laws observed that the following principles emerge there from : "1. That the amendment of the pleadings should ordinarily be allowed by the Court, once it is satisfied that the amendment is necessary for the just and proper decision of the controversy between the parties. 2. The amendment of the pleadings should not ordinarily be declined only on the ground of delay on the part of the appellant in seeking leave of the Court to amend the pleadings, if the opposite party can suitably be compensated by means of costs etc. Even inconsistent pleas can be allowed to be raised by amendment in the pleadings. 3. However, amendment of the pleadings cannot be allowed so as to completely alter the nature of the suit. 4. Amendment of the pleadings must not be allowed when amendment is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in the controversy between the parties. 5. The amendment should be refused where the plaintiff's suit would be wholly displaced by the proposed amendment. 6. Where the effect of the amendment would be to take away from the defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time or by operation of some law. 7. The amendment in the pleadings should not be allowed where the Court finds that amendment sought for has not been made in good faith or suffers from lack of bona fides. 8. Ordinarily, the amendment must not be allowed where a party wants to withdraw from the admission made by it in the original pleadings." 21. In this case amendment application so presented by the plaintiff-petitioner, in the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, leave no doubt that the amendment has become necessary for the just and proper decision of the controversy between the parties and the subsequent developments which have resulted from the defiant conduct of defendant non-petitioner No. 1. In this case amendment application so presented by the plaintiff-petitioner, in the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, leave no doubt that the amendment has become necessary for the just and proper decision of the controversy between the parties and the subsequent developments which have resulted from the defiant conduct of defendant non-petitioner No. 1. As held by the learned trial Court and is also maintained by the learned counsel for defendant non-petitioner No. 1, in the facts and circumstances discussed hereinbefore, by way of amendment of the plaint, it cannot be said that it will result in totally making out a new case and dispute, presently, not before the Court, Therefore, all these subsequent developments taking place during the pendency of the present suit and the dispute, it has become necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and in case such a prayer stands disallowed as the learned Munsiff has done vide his impugned order, it would occasion a failure of justice as well as in causing irreparable injury to the plaintiff. 22. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Munsiff committed a serious illegality thereby not exercising the legal jurisdiction vested in it and on the contrary refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by dis-allowing the amendment application. 23. As a result, on the facts and circumstances so borne out of the aforesaid discussion, do not infringe upon the principles enunciated while interpreting the purport, intent and scope of the provisions of Section 115, C.P.C. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. D.LF. Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd.'s case ( AIR 1971 SC 2324 ) (supra). Besides, when the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 encroached upon the suit premises and has committed the alleged wrongful act during the pendency of the suit, there arose no question of the relief sought for having been time barred. The defendant non-petitioner No. 1 having been encroached upon the suit premises by way of a trespasser and simultaneously raising new constructions as well as opening new gate, apertures and windows etc. abutting the suit premises, by creating additional burden on the suit premises, has committed such acts as a result of which there accrues a continuous cause of action to the plaintiff-petitioner on the grounds discussed hereinbefore. abutting the suit premises, by creating additional burden on the suit premises, has committed such acts as a result of which there accrues a continuous cause of action to the plaintiff-petitioner on the grounds discussed hereinbefore. He cannot be allowed to be at liberty to reap fruits of his wrongful and illegal acts and conduct. This disposed of the objection of non-petitioner No. 1 against maintainability of the petition itself. 24. Therefore, from which ever angle it is viewed, the relief sought for cannot be termed to be time barred as is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 relying on the decision of Munni Lal v. The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 642 . 25. On the basis of discussion and the conclusion arrived at, when it is found that the amendments which are necessary for determination of the real question in controversy and which do not tend to alter the nature of the case and besides the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 has grossly abused the process of the Court and has materially changed the situation as prevalent on the date of the institution of the suit in respect of the subject-matter relating to which the original suit was instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner, the amendments sought for in the body of the plaint as well as in respect of the consequential relief columns, ought to have been allowed by learned trial Munsif and the same has failed to exercise jurisdiction legally vested in it. 26. That being so, this revision petition being fully merited, warrants its acceptance. Therefore, no valid objection against the acceptance of this revision petition can be accepted from the side of the defendant non-petitioner No. 1. 27. This revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.4.1992 is reversed and it is further ordered that the plaintiff-petitioner be allowed to amend his plaint as prayed for, as per his original amendment application-which is subject-matter of this order.Revision allowed. *******