JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 8.2.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh in Civil Suit No. 116/89 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging inter alia that he is in possession of the disputed land since 1962 which he has taken on rent from non-petitioner/defendant and after putting his cabin there, he is running his business of selling tea, milk, snacks etc. He has paid the rent of the said land upto Sept., 1988. Thereafter the non-petitioner/defendant has refused to accept the rent and served a notice on him on 7.10.82 to vacate the land. The suit is pending since 1989. The petitioner moved an application on 12.12.2001 before the learned court below for amendment of the plaint as per the application. In the reply filed by and on behalf of non-petitioner/defendant on 22.01.2002, it has been submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff has already taken 56 adjournments for adducing his evidence. He has made 2 similar applications earlier also for amendment in the plaint but the same have been rejected and even the revisions filed against the orders rejecting the applications for amendment have been dismissed. The plaintiff has been afford last opportunity for adducing his evidence on a cost of Rs. 400/-. It has been alleged that the petitioner-plaintiff is a trespasser and unauthorised occupant on the disputed land and the purpose of moving this application is to delay the disposal of the suit and thereby the continue to be in possession of the disputed land. The amendment prayed for is not necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner-plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land since 1962 and if he is dispossessed and his cabin is removed from there, he would suffer an irreparable loss. He has also argued that if his cabin is removed, he would be rendered without employment and thus, will suffer irreparable loss. He has argued that the learned court below has committed material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction by refusing his application for amendment. 4. He has also argued that if his cabin is removed, he would be rendered without employment and thus, will suffer irreparable loss. He has argued that the learned court below has committed material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction by refusing his application for amendment. 4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner/defendant has vehemently contended that the petitioner is trying to delay the disposal of the original suit by hook or by crook and by taking recourse to frivolous proceedings in the court below as well as in this Court. He has also contended that the amendment sought is neither permissible nor it is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. He has contended that the defendant cannot be forced to sell the land in question to the petitioner at the rates of 1962. According to the learned counsel, the land is to be sold through public auction and if the petitioner is keen, he may purchase the land in public auction but he cannot get the relief prayed for by him in the suit. He has also contended that in view of the amendment in the CPC, the trial of the suit being at its fag end, no amendment can be permitted. 5. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the impugned order as also the other papers placed before me by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. I am of the considered view that there is neither any illegality nor impropriety or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned court below it cannot be said that the learned court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised the jurisdiction which is not vested in it. The learned court below has given cogent and valid reasons for disallowing the application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and I do not find any valid and justified ground to take a different view from the one taken by the learned court below. The proposed amendment is not necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. The proposed amendment is not necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. The proposed amendment gent seeks mandatory injunction against the non-petitioner/defendant to dispose of the disputed land on the rates of 1962 which is not permissible under the law and no such relief can be allowed in the suit to the plaintiff.In this view of the matter, therefore, this revision petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******