ORDER S.S. Nijjar, J. - The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegally interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and the other co-sharers over the land bearing Khewat No. 107, Khatuni No. 145, Khasra No. 36//12/1 (2-0), and Khatuni No. 1476, Khasra No. 36//11/4 (2-0), 19/2(1-6), 20/1(1-7), situated in the revenue estate of Jagadhri H.B. No. 400. Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamunanagar, as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85. 2. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed in part and the defendants were restrained from interfering in all the khasra numbers excepting khasra No. 36//19/2. The trial Court has recorded findings of fact on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. It was found that the defendants were in possession over khasra No. 36//19/2 for the last 50-60 years. These findings of fact have been affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. No prayer was made for seeking possession of the suit land. 3. Now the present application has been filed seeking amendment to incorporate the alternative plea of possession in the suit. Mr. Mamli submits that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. ought to be liberally construed. He further submits that no injustice will be done to the parties if the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint. Any injustice caused to the defendants can well be compensated by award of costs. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Undoubtedly, the Courts have been vested with wide discretion when deciding an application for amendment of the pleadings. Nevertheless, this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or at the mere asking of a party, who has not cared to take the plea either in the trial Court or in the first appellate Court. Judicial discretion, though undefined, has always to be exercised within the well defined limits. It is to be used to advance the cause of justice. It cannot be used to permit a party to fill in the lacunae in the case pleaded before the learned Courts below. In the fact and circumstances of present case, the plaintiff cannot now be permitted to amend the plaint claiming the relief of possession. This would amount reopening the whole issue which has been considered on merits by the learned Courts below. In the fact and circumstances of present case, the plaintiff cannot now be permitted to amend the plaint claiming the relief of possession. This would amount reopening the whole issue which has been considered on merits by the learned Courts below. In view of the above, there is no force in the present application. The same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.