ORDER N.K. Patil, J.--Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. These two revision petitions are filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Belgaum on I.A. Nos. XI and XII in O.S. No. 312 of 1990. 3. The Plaintiff-Petitioner has filed a suit against the Respondents-Defendants for the decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the Petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the said suit, the Petitioner herein has filed I.A. Nos. XI and XII which had come up for hearing before the trial Court on 26.2.2000. The trial Court after hearing both sides has rejected the prayers sought for by the Petitioner in the said I. As on the ground that the applications have been filed by the Petitioner after the lapse of more than 9 years, seeking for relief of declaring the alleged document as null and void. Further, it is stated that the alleged transaction of sale between the Petitioner and the Respondents was brought to the notice of the Petitioner as early as on 22.8.1990 itself and the Petitioner has not made any sincere efforts to make appropriate application well in time. On these two technical grounds, the trial Court has not accepted the case made out by the Petitioner for seeking an additional relief and rejected the same by its order dated 26.2.2000. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 26.2.2000 passed by the trial Court, the Petitioner has presented this revision petition. 4. The principal submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner came to know regarding the proposed amendment and the impleading application to be filed after the written statement filed by the Respondents and if the said applications are allowed, it is no way prejudice the right of the Respondents nor it change the nature of the suit. The trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the request made by the Petitioner on a hyper technical ground that, there is a delay of more than 9 years in making such applications and if at all, if the Petitioner wants to make such applications, he might have filed within three years from the date of his knowledge. The trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the request made by the Petitioner on a hyper technical ground that, there is a delay of more than 9 years in making such applications and if at all, if the Petitioner wants to make such applications, he might have filed within three years from the date of his knowledge. But in the instant case, the Petitioner has filed the applications to adjudicate the matter effectively in the present case itself. He has further pointed out that the specific reasoning was given by the trial Court stating that, "no-doubt the relief of declaration will not change the nature of suit for injunction in case if it is permissible under the statute". If the Court is satisfied, it ought not to have rejected the applications filed by the Petitioner. 5. Further, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan and Others, AIR 2001 SC 699 and contended that, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment, the Petitioner has made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Further he contended that the reasons assigned by the trial Court is perverse, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and prayed that the same may be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents inter alia contended that, the applications filed by the Petitioner is barred by limitation. If at all, if the Petitioner wanted to file the applications, he might have filed those applications within three years from the date of his knowledge. He has taken me through the impugned order passed by the trial Court and pointed out that the said fact has been brought to the notice of the Petitioner by the Respondents as early as on 28.8.1990 itself and thereafter the Petitioner has not made any sincere efforts for filing the applications and he has filed those applications on 28.8.1999 and there is an inordinate delay of more than 8 years. Therefore, the Petitioner has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Further, he pointed out that the trial Court has not committed any error or the said order is not perverse. Therefore, the Petitioner has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Further, he pointed out that the trial Court has not committed any error or the said order is not perverse. Therefore, he justified the impugned order passed by the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the applications filed by the Petitioner is just and proper and to execute the suit pending on the file of the trial Court. Further, he has rightly pointed out that the trial Court has accepted the legal position and given a specific finding to the effect that "No doubt the relief of declaration will not change the nature of suit for injunction in case if it is permissible under the statute". However, the trial Court has given a finding that the Plaintiff has failed to establish the case that the proposed amendment is permissible under the statute. Further the trial Court has not entertained the applications filed by the Petitioner on the ground of delay and laches. 8. In the instant case, the two applications filed by the Petitioner is after the lapse of more than 9 years from the date of the knowledge and the approach of the Petitioner is contrary to the material records. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court. If the ratio of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as stated supra is taken into consideration, the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the applications filed by the Petitioner is not sustainable and the same is liable to be rejected. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan and Others, AIR 2001 SC 699 has held thus: The purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation. 10. If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court as stated supra, in my considered view, the trial Court has committed an error and by taking into consideration of the totality of the instant case, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petitions filed by the Petitioner are allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court on I. As. XI and XII in O.S. No. 312 of 1990 is set aside. 13. Consequently, I As XI and XII are allowed subject to the payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the Respondents within three weeks from the date of the receipt of this order in the trial Court. 14. The matter stands remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to proceed with the case in accordance with law and dispose of the said suit as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity to both the parties.