ORDER 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter heard finally. 2. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 5.7.2011 passed by Fourth Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 68-A/2009; whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) has been rejected. 3. Suit by the petitioner, through his wife, against respondent, wife of petitioner’s son, is for mandatory injunction and for possession of House No. 1848/1849, situated at New Shobhapur Colony, Gokalpur Ward, Jabalpur. 4. Experiencing the difficulty in prosecuting the matter because of the ailment, (as per petitioner, he has to take treatment at Pune in regular intervals) therefore, in order to effectively plead the case, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. Petitioner also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of CPC proposing amendment by incorporating certain facts regarding the suit property and correction of the date of sale deed. 5. Trial Court rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish the right, title and interest of his wife, the power of attorney holder in the suit property. Similarly, while rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC the trial Court observed that if allowed the same will change the nature of suit. 6. Criticizing the order it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court fell into patent error in rejecting the applications. It is urged that being the wife, the proposed plaintiff is very much interested in the property in question and that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of suit. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent on his turn supports the order and seeks dismissal of petition. 8. Order 1 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stipulates that :- “1. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent on his turn supports the order and seeks dismissal of petition. 8. Order 1 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stipulates that :- “1. Who may be joined as plaintiffs :- All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where - (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction of series of acts or transaction is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.” 9. The proposed plaintiff being the wife of existing plaintiff share a common interest in her husband’s property and has an assertive right to enjoy the peaceful possession over her husband’s property. In that case it is not necessary for her to hold the title in the husband’s property. She can beside supporting the cause of her husband can severally establish her interest to enjoy the property. 10. In view wherof the trial Court is not justified in rejecting the application to implead the wife as co-plaintiff. The order deserves to be and is hereby quashed. 11. Similarly by application for amendment in the date of the sale deed was sought to be corrected and the pleading regarding assertion of title. The suit as apparent is for mandatory injunction and the possession of suit property. In the context therefore if the plaintiff intend to assert his right over property by additional facts, it cannot be said that the nature of suit would change. The trial Court was therefore not justified in rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. 12. In the result petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed. Application under Order 1 Rule 10 and under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC are allowed. The petitioner-plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment on or before next date fixed before trial Court. The respondent-defendant would be at liberty to seek consequential amendment. 13. The petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.