JUDGMENT A.L.Vaidya, J.: The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.2.1995 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, dis-allowing an application preferred by the present defendant-petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the present respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the predecessor - in -interest of the present defendant-petitioners. The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded, had been that they purchased land comprised in Khasra Nos.2171/l, 2171/l/l//1, 2172, 2173/l, 2957/2173/l/l measuring 178.13 sq. mtrs. from the defendant vide registered sale deed executed on 23.12.1987 and with regard to the sale deed, the defendant filed civil suit for declaration and injunction, which suit was compromised between the parties. It was also pleaded that as per the compromise, the plaintiffs left some part of khasra Nos.2957/2173/1/1 and 2173/1 measuring 8-0.3 sq. meters, in favour of defendant Sant Singh which was situated at the back- side of the road and the defendant Sant Singh, out of his own land, i.e. some part of Khasra No.2171/2 and Khasra No.2171/1/2 measuring 3.60 sq. mtrs. left in favour of the plaintiffs and this land was situated in front of the road side and according to plaintiff, as per this compromise, the length of the front was 7.80 C.meters. The compromise deed and tatima filed therewith have been annexed with the plaint. It was further pleaded that on the basis of the compromise Ex. P-l and tatima Ex.P-2, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, as per plaintiffs they raised pillars on the front side on Khasra No.2171/1 by leaving 90 C. meters land (front) in Khasra No.2171/1 towards the land of the defendant and 90 C. meters land was kept vacant for the construction of the stairs, but the defendant was interfering unnecessarily in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and preventing them to raise stairs on khasra No.2171/1/1 and 2171/1 and was further threatening to dis-possess plaintiff from the above mentioned land by raising a structure over it, for which some material had been collected at the spot. According to plaintiff, defendant was not having any right, title and interest over the suit land, but inspite of requests, he was ought to raise construction and encroach upon the land of the plaintiff. Hence the suit for injunction was filed. 3. According to plaintiff, defendant was not having any right, title and interest over the suit land, but inspite of requests, he was ought to raise construction and encroach upon the land of the plaintiff. Hence the suit for injunction was filed. 3. Shri Sant Singh, deceased defendant, has contested the suit by filing written-statement. Various legal pleas were raised, but on merit, it was pleaded and admitted that the earlier suit was compromised between the parties and some modification was made in the registered sale deed and according to compromise deed, the defendant also agreed to transfer 173.70 sq. meters of land in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiffs used to interfere with the rest of the portion and wanted to grab more land under the garb of the compromise deed, therefore, a false and fictitious suit was filed. Again, the deceased defendant admitted that the judgment and decree were passed in the previous suit on the basis of compromise. According to defendant, the remedy available to the plaintiff was for partition. It was further pleaded that in- fact the plaintiffs have covered their portion according to compromise deed and they have not left any vacant portion of their share and in-fact they have completed their front portion of the house. The defendant denied to be interfering in plaintiffs possession. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed in August 1988. The original defendant Sant Singh died during the pendency of the suit, when the case had been fixed for the evidence of the plaintiffs. The present defendant-petitioners were substituted as legal representatives of deceased defendant. 5. The defendant-petitioners, in December 1994, filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement. The defendants sought the following amendment to be made in the written statement already filed by their father, the deceased Shri Sant Singh: "a) In preliminary objection No. l, lines and words from 2nd line, "as the plaintiff..... parties," to the lines are to be deleted. b) Preliminary objection No.4 is to be omitted. c) Para Nos. 1 to 3 of the reply on merit arc to be re-drafted and substituted as under: 1. Para No. l pertains to the sale deed dated 23.12.1987 and the later compromise between the parties, but sale dated 23.12.1987 was wrong, illegal, void and in violation of H.P.Town and Country Planning Rules. c) Para Nos. 1 to 3 of the reply on merit arc to be re-drafted and substituted as under: 1. Para No. l pertains to the sale deed dated 23.12.1987 and the later compromise between the parties, but sale dated 23.12.1987 was wrong, illegal, void and in violation of H.P.Town and Country Planning Rules. The compromise between the parties in a suit to that effect was also by way of deception and fraud of the plaintiffs played by the plaintiffs over Shri Sant Singh who was induced by misrepresentation of a Tatima illegally and wrongly got prepared by the plaintiffs, in collusion with the revenue officials, Shri Sant Singh hard of hearing, having weak and feeble mind. The compromise dated 21.5.88, was otherwise also wrong and illegal, being in violation of the statute, and further there had been no registration of sale, as such, the sale of any land to the plaintiffs is void, unenforceable and inoperative and inoperative and the suit based thereupon is not tenable. 2. Para 2 is wrong, illegal and is not admitted in view of the reply of para No. l, Otherwise, the compromise, Tatima and sale are all illegal, matter of record but not legally enforceable. 3. Para 3 of the plaint is correct that suit was compromised and decree was passed as alleged which arc illegal and unencorceable as the plaintiff had intention to avoid and defeat the suit in order to grab and occupy the land of the defendants, which he did after the aforesaid decree by raising wall on the boundary of his existing building by covering his intended purchased land." d) In para 5, the sentence after full stop of line No.3," words and lines No.4 to 6," arc to be omitted, by substituting as under: "The plaintiffs have no right to raise any stairs or construction beyond the existing wall of their building standing on the land factually sold to them." c) Last para of the prayer is to be re-drafted and substituted as under: "It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs being false, frivolous and illegal is not maintainable. The plaintiffs arc not legally owners of the land, under the alleged sales, and otherwise, they have no land beyond the existing wall of their building. The plaintiffs arc not legally owners of the land, under the alleged sales, and otherwise, they have no land beyond the existing wall of their building. The plaintiffs have already occupied wrongfully more than the land legally and intended to be sold to the plaintiffs, for which necessary legal steps if needed are to be taken separately, but the present suit is mala fide with ulterior motive to harass and claim further land after raising of wall on boundary of the land agreed as sold, and to pressurise the defendants not to oppose them or to take any steps against the wrongfully and illegal acts of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief of injunction, in view of the wrongful, deceptive and illegal acts and conduct of the plaintiffs. The suit may kindly be dismissed with costs, and justice be done." It was pleaded in the application that the aforesaid amendments were essential to determine the real controversy between the parties 6. This application had been contested on behalf of the plaintiffs and it had been submitted in their reply that the defendants were not legally entitled to amend the written statement, as sought by them, on the ground that in doing so, there would be a change in the defence taken by the defendants and it would prejudice the case of the plaintiffs, who, on the basis of the original written statement, have acquired some right which would be taken away in case the proposed amendment was allowed. It was also stated that the petition is not made bonafide, inasmuch as it has been preferred not only after undue delay, but also with the intention to take away the right of the plaintiffs, which they got by the compromise decree which, between the parties, was final. 7. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, dis-allowed the application. 8. In the present revision petition, learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the entire record has been scrutinised. 9. There is no dispute to the proposition that any party to a suit can be permitted by the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, to alter the pleadings in case the proposed amendment was essential to determine real controversy between the parties. To this provision of law, learned counsel for the parties have got no dispute. 10. 9. There is no dispute to the proposition that any party to a suit can be permitted by the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, to alter the pleadings in case the proposed amendment was essential to determine real controversy between the parties. To this provision of law, learned counsel for the parties have got no dispute. 10. It has been contended on behalf of the defendant-petitioners that the proposed amendment, sought for by the defendants, comes within the am bit of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, inasmuch as if it was allowed it will not at all change the nature of the defence, but also would be helpful in determining the real controversy between the parties. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submission, the circumstances present in this case have to be looked into 11. In the previous suit, the subject matter of the suit was the land owned by Shri Sant Singh deceased measuring 247.09 under khasra Nos.2171, 2171/1, 2172, 2957/2173/1. It was the case of the plaintiff in that earlier suit that out of the aforesaid land khasra No.2173/1, measuring 97.50 sq. mtrs and khasra Nos.2171/1, 2171/1/1, 2172, 2957/2173/1/1 measuring 178.13 sq. mtrs was alleged to have been sold in favour of the defendants in that suit (plaintiffs in the present suit). The subject matter of the previous suit has been described with the sole purpose so as to specifically refer that the subject matter of the compromise decree passed in the earlier suit was also a part of the subject matter of that suit, .meaning thereby the land awarded to each party in the said compromise decree was already the subject matter of that suit. Again, to this aspect also, there is no dispute between the parties. 12. The proposed amendment, at first instance, seeks permission to add the plea that the compromise in the earlier suit was the result of mis-representation, deception and fraud played by the plaintiffs over Shn Sant Singh who was alleged to be hard of hearing and having a feeble mind. 13. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the original written statement filed by Shri Sant Singh deceased, he had very specifically admitted the compromise and the compromise decree passed in the previous suit. The only objection raised was pertaining to the terms of the compromise and how it could be given effect to. 13. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the original written statement filed by Shri Sant Singh deceased, he had very specifically admitted the compromise and the compromise decree passed in the previous suit. The only objection raised was pertaining to the terms of the compromise and how it could be given effect to. During the life time of Shri Sant Singh, he did not select to assail this compromise on any ground whatsoever. It is after his death that his sons have selected to assail the alleged compromise effected by their father in a previous litigation, which otherwise, was final between the parties. This specific amendment, sought to be introduced, cannot be favourably considered. At first instance, neither the defendants nor their predecessors, took any step whatsoever to assail the compromise decree passed in 1988 till today. No independent separate action in this behalf has been tried to be taken by the defendants or by their predecessors. It does not appeal to reasoning at all that the deceased defendant, who had all opportunity with him, inspite of that, did not take any step whatsoever to assail the compromise decree b; claiming that the said decree was the result of fraud and mis-representation. It does not speak of bonafide of defendants that such a plea is now being taken after the death of the person, upon whom the alleged and mis-representation was practised, on this sole ground, on the point of un-explained delay, the said proposed amendment is to be dis-allowed having not being the result of bonafide action. Otherwise also, in case the proposed amendment is allowed, it will definitely change the nature of the defence taken by the original defendant, wherein he had specifically admitted the alleged compromise and the compromise decree. He did not raise even a finger regarding the validity of that compromise. In case the amendment is allowed, the basic defence regarding the admission of the compromise is taken away, i.e. the compromise itself is taken away from the record. Otherwise also, allowing such an amendment would mean to afford opportunity to the defendants to assail the compromise decree which has already become final and it would mean to help the defendants to do away with the valid decree which, between the parties, was final. In this view of the matter, this amendment cannot be allowed. 14. Otherwise also, allowing such an amendment would mean to afford opportunity to the defendants to assail the compromise decree which has already become final and it would mean to help the defendants to do away with the valid decree which, between the parties, was final. In this view of the matter, this amendment cannot be allowed. 14. It has also been submitted that the compromise in the previous suit was against statute. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by making submissions that in the previous compromise decree, the alleged compromise amounted to sale of some land by the parties in between themselves, which required registration Act under the Registration Act and under the Town and Country Planning Act, therefore, such a compromise will not, in any manner, transfer title pertaining to the land under compromise decree. It is not so simple a matter as has been contended on behalf of the defendant-petitioners. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to find support from a precedent reported in AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 196 Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major & Ors. The relevant observations made by their Lordships arc re-produced hereunder: "The legal position qua Clause (vi) of Section 17(2) can be summarised as below: (1) Compromise decree if bonafide, in the sence that the compromise is not a device to obviate payment of stamp duty and frustrate the law relating to registration would not require registration. In a converse situation, it would require registration. (2) If the compromise decree were to create for the first time right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or upwards in favour of any party to the suit, the decree or order would require registration. (3) If the decree were not to attract any of the clause of sub- Section (1) of Section 17, it is apparent that the decree would not require registration. (4) If the decree were not to embody the terms of compromise, benefit from the terms of compromise cannot be derived, even if a suit were to be disposed of because of the compromise in question. (5) If the property dealt with by the decree be not the "subject matter of the suit or proceeding", Clause (vi) of sub-Section (2) would not operate." 16. There is no dispute to the aforesaid ratio ennunciated in the case supra. (5) If the property dealt with by the decree be not the "subject matter of the suit or proceeding", Clause (vi) of sub-Section (2) would not operate." 16. There is no dispute to the aforesaid ratio ennunciated in the case supra. In so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the registration of the compromise was not essential. Firstly, the alleged compromise decree could not be said, not to be a bonafide one. It was effected between the parties to settle the dispute between them for all times to come. Otherwise also, as has been pointed out above, the land which was subject matter of the compromise, was also the subject matter of that suit and in this view of the matter, under Section 17(2) (vi) of the Registration Act, the registration of the compromise deed was not essential. Moreover, in the present case, the compromise was not a sale in its true sense, but was an adjustment between the parties with respect to the property already sold in favour of one of the party by the other party who was owning that property sold and other property also. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon 1995 Supp (2) SCC 303 Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjenappa & Anr. It has been held in this reported case that even admission in the pleadings can be explained and inconsistent picas can be taken in amendment petition. There is absolutely no dispute to the said proposition^ but the law laid down in the aforesaid case will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In this reported case, the defendants in their written statement had taken a definite stand that respondent had entered into an agreement of sale and the same was sought to be modified by staling that respondent had entered into an agreement for development of the land for mutual benefit of the parties. Such an amendment proposed to be introduced has been held to be allowed, as it was held that the trial Court was wrong in dismissing the amendment petition, holding that it was not open to the respondent to explain whether the agreement was one of sale or for mutual benefit. The High Court in exercise of the power under Section 151 was held to have committed no material irregularity in permitting amendment of the written statement. The High Court in exercise of the power under Section 151 was held to have committed no material irregularity in permitting amendment of the written statement. So far as the facts of the present case arc concerned, those are quite distinct and the aforesaid proposition is not involved in the present case. 18. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said on any stretch of imagination that the compromise decree was against statute, which required registration compulsorily. 19. No other point has been stressed. 20. In view of the fore going reasons, this Court does not find any occasion whatsoever in allowing the present revision petition and that being so, the same is dismissed with costs. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30.10.1996. Record of the trial Court be sent back so as to reach that Court by or before the aforesaid date. -