JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29.4.1999 by which the application of the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC for amending the plaint has been rejected. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner filed a suit in 1992 for permanent injunction against the non-petitioners-defendants alleging that the non-petitioners-defendants are adjacent neighbours and have opened a fixed iron gate in the common wall of the parties. The non-petitioners-defendants, by opening the alleged door and fixing the iron gate thereon have encroached the petitioner-plaintiff's ota (Chabutri)and have trespassed over it. The matter is pending since then and at a belated stage, after six years, he filed an application for amendment as he wanted to make the amendment to the effect that along with the ota (Chabutri), stares have to be added and further that during the pendency of the suit, the non-petitioners-defendants had also constructed a toilet in the balcony extending the balcony by putting iron rods and the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction for demolition thereof. The said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court being filed at a belated stage. The learned trial Court was of the view that as the amendment is also for direction to demolishing the toilet, it will change the very nature of the suit and, therefore, the amendment was not allowed. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Admittedly, if the amendment is allowed and the facts of construction of toilet and the right of the petitioner-plaintiff to get it demolished is accepted, it will definitely change the nature of the suit. On hat count alone, it is not a case where the trial Court may be said to have exercised the jurisdiction improperly. Neither in the application filed before the learned trial Court nor before this Court, it is evident anywhere as on that date the toilet was constructed because the suit was filed in 1992 and the amendment application was filed after six years i.e. in 1998. If limitation to file a fresh suit for mandatory injunction for demolition of the said toilet cannot be filed after expiry of three years from the date of construction, the amendment cannot be permitted as it would serve the purpose of the petitioner-plaintiff to serve his cause indirectly which he cannot achieve directly. If limitation to file a fresh suit for mandatory injunction for demolition of the said toilet cannot be filed after expiry of three years from the date of construction, the amendment cannot be permitted as it would serve the purpose of the petitioner-plaintiff to serve his cause indirectly which he cannot achieve directly. Even today, in spite of repeatedly being asked, Shri Chhangani, learned counsel for the petitioner, is not in a position to state that as on what date the construction was made and if it has been made prior to three years from the date of moving the application, acceptance of such application would amount to disturbing the accrued rights in favour of the other parties and that is not permissible. 4. It is settled legal proposition that amendment in the pleadings may generally be allowed and the amendment may also be allowed at a belated stage. However, it should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The amendment sought should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Application for amendment may be rejected if the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him injury which could not be compensated in terms of cost or change the nature of the suit itself as it cannot be permitted to create an entirely new case by amendment. A right accrued in favour of a party by lapse of time cannot be permitted to be taken away by amendment. Amendment can also be allowed at appellate stage. Introduction of an entirely new case, displacing even admission by a party is not permissible. (Vide : P.H. Patil vs. Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil & Ors., AIR 1957 SC 363 ; Nanduri Yogananda Laxminarsimhachari & Ors. v. Agasthe Swarswamivaru, AIR 1960 SC 622 ; M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co., AIR 1977 SC 680 ; Pandit Ishwardas v. State of M.P., AIR 1979 SC 551 and Mulk Raj Batra v. District Judge, Dehradun, AIR 1982 SC 24 ). 5. Similar view has been reiterated in G. Nagamma & Anr. v. Siromanamma & Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 25 ; B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameshwaran Pillai & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 712 . 5. Similar view has been reiterated in G. Nagamma & Anr. v. Siromanamma & Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 25 ; B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameshwaran Pillai & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 712 . However, a party cannot be permitted to move an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code after the judgment has been reserved. (Vide Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 993 ). 6. In Laduram v. Sheodev, 1959 RLW 273 , this Court held that if the plaintiffwants to add certain facts, which the plaintiffhad not chosen to mention in the original plaint and the same had been in his knowledge when the plaint was instituted, the plaintiff canont be allowed to make fresh allegation of facts by way of amendment at a belated stage. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon the judgment in Gopal Krishanamurthi v. Shreedhara Rao, AIR 1950 Mad. 32 . In Gauri Shankar v. M/s. Hindustan Trust (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 2091 , the Apex Court held that in case of gross delay, application for amendment must be rejected. Same view had been reiterated in Union of India & Ors. v. Surjit Singh Atwal, AIR 1979 SC 1701 . 7. It is settled legal proposition that amendment sought time-barred, where the party acquires right by bar of limitation and if the same is sought to be taken away by amendment of pleadings, amendment in such circumstance must be refused. Wide Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2358 & Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy, (2001) 8 SCC 115 ]. 8. In G. Nagamma & Ors. v. Siromanamma & Anr., JT 1998 (4) SC 484 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in an application under Order 6, Rule 17, even an alternative relief can be sought; however, it should not change the cause of action or materially affect the relief claimed earlier. 9. In Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, AIR 1985 SC 817 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that normally amendment is not allowed if it changes the cause of action, but where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action, or raises a new case, but amounts to not more than adding to the facts already on record, the amendment should be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation. 10. 10. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders, AIR 1975 SC 1409 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judges to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to Court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the Tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is not violated, with a view to promote substantial justice -subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial Court." 11. In Muni Lal v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 642 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the relief of amendment should be granted to "render substantial justice without causing injustice to the other party or violating fair-play and the Court should be entitled to grant proper relief even at the stage of appellate forum." Similar view has been reiterated in Jagdish Singh v. Nathu Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1604 . 12. In A.K. Gupta & Sons. v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of new cause of action or raises a different case but amounts to no more than an additional different approach to the same facts, the amendment should be allowed even if the statutory period of limitation was expired. While deciding the said case, reliance had been placed upon the judgment in Charan Das v. Amit Khan, AIR 1921 PC 50 & L.J. Leaon & Co. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 375. 13. While deciding the said case, reliance had been placed upon the judgment in Charan Das v. Amit Khan, AIR 1921 PC 50 & L.J. Leaon & Co. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 375. 13. In Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1974 SC 1126 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may, at any stage, be properly exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding, but the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary power is governed by judicial consideration and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court." 14. In M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Maoji Rain, AIR 1978 SC 484 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where amendment is found to be necessary for prompting the ends of justice and not for defeating it, the application should be allowed. Similar view had been reiterated in B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 614 . 15. In Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala, AIR 1964 SC 11 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "It is true that save in exceptional cases, leave to amend under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code will ordinarily be refused when the effect of the amendment would be to take away from a party a legal right which had accrued to him by lapse of time. But this rule can apply only when either fresh allegations added or fresh relief sought by way of amendment. Where, for instance, an amendment is sought which merely clarifies an existing pleading and does not in substance add to or alter it, it has never been held that the question of a bar of limitation is one of the questions to be considered in allowing such clarification of a matter already contained in the original pleading. The present is a fortioti so." 16. In Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256 , the Apex Court held that the ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystalised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied : (i) that the relief, as claimed ordinarily has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the Court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. The Court further observed as under : "Such subsequent event may be one purely of law or founded on facts. In the former case, the Court may take judicial note of the event and before acting thereon put the parties on notice of how the change in law is going to affect the rights and obligations of the parties and modify or mould the course of litigation or the relief so as to bring it in conformity with the law. In the latter case, the controversy either as to their existence or in their impact, is expected to have resort to amendment of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. Such subsequent event, the Court may permit being introduced into the pleadings by way of amendment as it would be necessary to do so for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties." 17. The amendment may be necessary for the reason that decision of a case cannot be based on grounds out-side the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be founded; without the amendment of the pleadings, the Court would not be entitled to modify or alter the relief as relief not founded on pleadings cannot be granted. [Vide Shri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho., (1898) 25 IA 195 and Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235 ]. 18. In Fritiz T.M. Clement & Anr v. Sudhakaran Nadar & Anr., JT 2002(2) SC 389 , the Apex Court examined the similar issue and held as under:- "There is nothing in these two sub-paras which changes the basis and character of the suit. Nor can they have any prejudicial effect uis-a-vis the defence of respondents ........ 18. In Fritiz T.M. Clement & Anr v. Sudhakaran Nadar & Anr., JT 2002(2) SC 389 , the Apex Court examined the similar issue and held as under:- "There is nothing in these two sub-paras which changes the basis and character of the suit. Nor can they have any prejudicial effect uis-a-vis the defence of respondents ........ Some of these averments may, at best be considered unnecessary but do not tantamount to setting up a new case or cause of action. So also, the mere fact that in regard to quantification of the fee, some changes are sought to be introduced while retaining the total amount claimed in the original plaint, does not mean that the nature of relief claimed has undergone a material change. Therefore, the grounds of rejection of amendments are legally unjustified and based on non- application of mind to the exact nature of amendments." 19. In Hanuwant Singh Rawat v. M/s. Rajputana Automobiles, Ajmer, (1993) 1 WLC 625 , this Court (Jaipur Bench) summarised the legal position as under : (i)That the amendment of 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; (ii) 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; (iii) However, amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to completely alter the nature of the suit; (iv) 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; (v) The amendment should be refused where the plaintiffs suit would be wholly displaced by the proposed amendment; (vi) 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; (vii) 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; and (viii) Ordinarily, the amendment must not be allowed where a party wants to withdraw from the admission made by it in the original pleadings." 20. If the instant case is considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, undoubtedly, if the amendment is allowed, it will change the nature of the suit and moreso there is a possibility of disturbing the accrued right in favour of the other parties because of delay. Moreso, the application has been filed in most casual and cavaliour manner as date of construction of the toilet etc. or knowledge of the said factum has not been disclosed nor Shri Chhangani, learned counsel for the petitioner, is in a position to state even today. 21. Thus, in view of the above, it is not a fit case warranting interference of the Court in a limited revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, there fore, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. There shall be no order as to the costs.Revision petition dismissed. *******