Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gannaur whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed. 2. The facts may be noticed briefly. 3. The plaintiff  Jagdish (since deceased and represented by his Legal Heirs) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Sat Pal  defendant No. 1 and latters two minor sons, seeking declaration that the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 435 of 1997 titled as Sat Pal and Ors. v. Umra, is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and that defendant No. 1 be restrained from alienating, mortgaging the land, fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint. 4. It may be mentioned here that the deceased plaintiff  Jagdish was real brother of respondent-defendant No. 1. The un-amended plaint (Annexure P-2) reveals that the afore-stated declaratory relief has been sought by the plaintiff/petitioners on various grounds taken in para No. 8 of the plaint. 5. However, when the suit was nearing conclusion as both the parties had already led their evidence, the plaintiff-petitioners moved an application for amendment of the plaint in order to incorporate one more ground that the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.4.1998 was subject to registration on payment of stamp duty as per the Indian Registration Act and since the same was not got registered and the stamp duty was not paid, it was no longer a valid decree in the eyes of law. 6. The incorporation of the aforementioned additional ground, however, has been declined by the learned trial Court after observing that (i) the amendment has been sought after almost nine years; (ii) the ground and the facts were in the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioners; (iii) the plea could be raised at the time of filing of the suit; (iv) no amendment of the plaint can be allowed when the relief prayed for by way of amendment would be barred by limitation and (v) no subsequent event has taken place with regard to the suit property. 7. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. 8. 7. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. 8. It may be noticed that on 16.9.2007 when notice was issued, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that by virtue of the proposed amendment only a legal plea is sought to be raised by them. In other words, no additional evidence is required to be led in support of the said plea. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other material on record. 10. While considering an application for amendment of the pleadings, there are several factors to be taken into consideration by the trial Court including the prejudice or hardship, if any, likely to be caused to the opposite party. As may be noticed from the unamended plaint, the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1998 is already under challenge on various grounds incorporated in para No. 8 of the plaint. Addition of one more ground, therefore, would not render the relief already sought in the plaint, as barred by limitation. Similarly, the proposed amendment being legal in character, neither it will prolong the suit nor would cause any irreparable loss to the respondents. 11. Consequently, and for the reasons aforementioned, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint is allowed. They are permitted to incorporate one more ground in para No. 8 of their plaint. However, this shall not entitle the petitioners to lead additional evidence. The petitioners shall be permitted to place on record the amended plaint subject to payment of Rs. 3500/-as costs to be paid to the respondents. 12. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 29.2.2008. 13. Disposed of.