ORDER : Kuldip Chand Sood, J. This petition arises out of the orders of learned Sub Judge, Theog, dated 10th December, 2001 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff, petitioner herein, for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, few facts may be noticed. 3. Plaintiff Beli Ram filed a suit for injunction on 26th July, 1995 alleging that land, subject matter of dispute, is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and his brothers alongwith some other persons. Defendants No. 1 to 5 are the owners of the adjacent land comprised in Khasra No. 724. The defendants sold some trees allegedly from-Khasra No. 724 to defendant No. 6, Defendant No. 6 started felling trees. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that the defendants felled 25 Deodar' and 'Kail' trees from the land in dispute and have caused pecuniary loss to the plaintiff and his brothers. 4. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The allegations were controverted. It was denied that any tree was felled from the land of the plaintiff or his brothers. According to defendants, the trees were felled from their own land comprised in Khasra No. 724 after due demarcation. 5. On 21st May, 2001, an application was moved by the plaintiff Beli Ram saying that a Local Commissioner was appointed and the report of the Local Commissioner shows that 14 trees were felled from the land of the plaintiff and his brothers and therefore he may be permitted to amend his plaint to claim Rs.90,000/ - as damages. The application was dis-allowed by the learned trial Judge on the grounds that such a plea, sought to be raised by amendment of the plaint, would be barred by the period of limitation on the date when application for amendment of the plaint was filed . 6. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff is in this revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Mr. 6. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff is in this revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Mr. B.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai, (2000) 1 SCC 712 : AIR 2001 SC 699 and Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan, (2001) 2 SCC 472 : ( AIR 2000 SC 614 ) contends that the purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation and the plea raised by the defendants that such amendment would be barred by the period of limitation should not be in the way of the plaintiff to amend his plaint to include the claim for damages, particularly when the plaintiff has, in hiss plaint itself, stated that certain trees were felled by the defendants in the land of the plaintiff and his brothers. 9. It is true that power to amend pleadings is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. It is equally true that the Court would not, while deciding such application, adopt hyper-technical approach, more so when other side can be compensated with costs. But, at the same time, Court would not allow an amendment which may result in defeating a legal right of the opposite party on account of lapse of time. 10. In the present case, admittedly, according to the own pleadings of the plaintiff, trees were felled in the year 1995 when he filed the suit and therefore, the claim for compensation, by amendment of the plaint, in the year 2001 would be undoubtedly barred by limitation. In my view, such an amendment cannot be allowed. 11. In B.K. Narayana Pillai Their Lordships observed that the amendment should invariably be permitted where it would result in solution of real controversy between parties. But, at the same time, cautioned the Apex Court, where a legal right has accrued to a party due to lapse of time an amendment defeating such right should not be allowed. 12. In para-4 of the judgment it was observed that no amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates (sic results) in defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. 13. 12. In para-4 of the judgment it was observed that no amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates (sic results) in defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. 13. In Ragu Thilak D. John, it was observed by the Apex Court that the purpose of allowing an amendment is to minimise litigation and where the amendment sought is barred by time which fact was arguable and the plea of limitation being disputed, could be made a subject matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for. 14. In the present case, such is not the case. The plea sought to be introduced by amendment to claim damages for felling of trees on the own pleading of the plaintiff would be time barred when amendment was sought. 15. I see no infirmity in the orders of the learned trial Court. There is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed. No order as to costs. 16. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17th March, 2003. The record of the trial Court shall be remitted back immediately so as to reach well before the date fixed.