Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 13th April, 2009, whereby the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case, in brief are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a civil suit in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, seeking permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants together with an application of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking an amendment in the plaint, but the learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 13th April, 2009, which has been impugned. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the plaintiffs executed a bank guarantee in favour of the defendant No. 1 M/s. Sona Processors (India Ltd., for an amount of Rs. 8 lacs. The bank guarantee was given for a specific purpose against any final demand confirmed by the appropriate authority upto CESTAT and Supreme Court of India, in connection with the existing show cause notice V(55) Seize/9/2003/4317 & 18 and order in Original No. 197104/05 dated 1st June, 2004 and review order dated 17th May, 2005 regarding investigation made during the period from 26th November, 2002 to 30th November, 2002 by officers of Central Excise Department, Bhilwara. During the pendency of the suit, the application with regard to temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial court and soon thereafter, the defendant No. 1 encashed the bank guarantee and obtained the payment from defendant No. 2 Punjab National Bank on 29th October, 2007. The petitioners-plaintiffs accordingly filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking an amendment in the plaint, but the learned trial court dismissed the application observing that by way of encashing observing that by way of encashing the bank guarantee, a separate cause of action has arisen on 29th October, 2007, which is different to the cause of action already existing in plaint, hence, the amendment could not be permitted as it shall alter the nature of the suit. Learned counsel canvassed that merely because during the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 1 was able to encash the bank guarantee, the plaintiffs could not have been rendered remediless. Since, during the pendency of the suit, subsequent event occurred, which is intrinsically related to the existing relief then in such a case, the amendment should be allowed, as filing a separate suit for this cause will give rise to multiplicity of litigation. Learned counsel further contended that rule of procedure were hand made for administration of justice, hence, in the event of subsequent developments, the plaintiffs ought not have been relegated for filing an amendment application in the suit. Learned counsel also contended that by way of amendment, he has not prayed to make an amendment in the pleadings, rather the pleadings shall remain the same, only the relief shall be different. Thus, in view of these facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court has committed a grave error in disallowing the amendment in the prayer part of the plaint. He has cited three judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (1) Vineet Kumar vs. Mangal Sain Wadhera reported in (1984) 3 Supreme Court Cases 352; (2) North Eastern Railway, Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by Lrs. reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 511; and (3) Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3369, in support of his case. 5. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. Learned counsel further contended that in case, the amendment as sought by the petitioners is allowed, it will change the nature of the suit and will cause prejudice to him. The impugned order is perfect, which should not be interfered with. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is revealed that on 18th October, 2007, the learned trial court dismissed the application of temporary injunction filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and soon thereafter, the respondent No. 2 encashed the bank guarantee of Rs. 8 lacs and obtained the payment from the respondent No. 3 Punjab National Bank. 8 lacs and obtained the payment from the respondent No. 3 Punjab National Bank. A bare reading of the prayer part of the plaint suggests that the petitioners-plaintiffs had prayed for permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from encashing the bank guarantee and further restraining the respondent No. 3 Punjab National Bank from making payment thereof to the respondent No. 2. If the relief, as sought for got frustrated by way of getting encashment of bank guarantee on a subsequent date to the filing of the suit, then it cannot be said that a separate cause of action had arisen and the amendment commensurating to the subsequent development could not be permitted. 7. In the case of Vineet Kumar vs. Mangal Sain Wadhera reported in (1984) 3 Supreme Court Cases 352, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:- "Normally amendment in plaint is not allowed if it changes the cause of action. However, where the amendment does not constitute an addition of a new cause of action, or raise a new case, but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on the record, the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation. Processual justice requires that the events and develop-ments subsequent to the institution of proceedings must be taken into consideration in appropriate cases to promote substantial justice." 8. Similarly, in the case of North Eastern Railway, Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By Lrs. reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 511, the Hon'ble Apex Court cautioned the courts to keep broad principles in view with regard to permitting the amendment in the relief sought for and held thus:- "16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. 9. In the case of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3369, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that if there is no change in the nature of the suit and simply a change in the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff and it was open for the plaintiff to file a fresh suit, the trial court should not refuse the prayer for amendment. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "We fail to understand, if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings." 10. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that in case, the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs is allowed, it shall not alter the nature of the suit, but will simply change the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. The learned trial court, in the facts and circumstance of the case, has thus, committed a grave error in refusing the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs in the plaint. The trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought to have allowed the said amendment. It seems that the court could not analyze the subsequent event in its right perspective and it, therefore, erred in disallowing the amendment. The impugned order suffers from an infirmity, which deserves to be set aside. 11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13th April, 2009 rendered by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, stands set aside.