JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - Plaintiff Gurmail Singh @ Kaka Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala Cantt., thereby dismissing application Annexure P-2 moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint Annexure P-1. 2. Plaintiff-petitioner and defendant-respondent no.1 Ran Singh are real brothers being sons of Norang Singh – defendant no.2 (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives). Norang Singh suffered decree dated 18.07.1995 regarding suit land in favour of Ran Singh - defendant no.1. The plaintiff in the suit challenged the said judgment and decree dated 18.07.1995 and the consequent mutation. During pendency of the suit, defendant no.1 sold the suit land to defendants no.1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) (respondents no.2 to 5 herein). By amendment of plaint, the said sale deeds were also challenged in the suit. 3. The plaintiff now moved application Annexure P-2 alleging that Norang Singh – defendant no.2 has since died on 09.01.2010, and therefore, now the plaintiff is also entitled to possession of his one-third share in the suit land. Consequently, the plaintiff, by amendment of plaint, wanted to plead the factum of death of Norang Singh along with necessary amendments and also wanted to seek relief of possession of one-third share of the suit land. Respondents no.2 to 5 herein, by filing reply Annexure P-3, opposed the amendment application on various grounds. It was pleaded that plaintiff has no right to seek relief of possession. Learned trial court, vide impugned order Annexure P-4, dismissed the plaintiff’s application for amendment of plaint, necessitating the filing of this revision petition by the plaintiff. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff reiterated that cause of action to seek the relief of possession arose to the plaintiff on 09.01.2010 on the death of Norang Singh and immediately thereafter, plaintiff moved application Annexure P-2 dated 03.02.2010 for amendment of plaint, and therefore, the proposed amendment based on subsequent event should have been allowed. 6. Counsel for the contesting respondents contended that possession of the suit land was with the contesting respondents pursuant to sale deeds in their favour, and therefore, the plaintiff could seek the relief of possession even earlier. 6. Counsel for the contesting respondents contended that possession of the suit land was with the contesting respondents pursuant to sale deeds in their favour, and therefore, the plaintiff could seek the relief of possession even earlier. It was also contended that amendment of plaint was sought after commencement of trial, and therefore, can not be allowed in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC). 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 8. The suit was instituted on 20.04.2001 and therefore, amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as it now exists after amendment by amending Act of 2002, is not applicable to the instant suit, having been instituted before the said amendment. Consequently, the proposed amendment of plaint cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that amendment was sought after commencement of trial. Even otherwise, the proposed amendment of plaint, being based on subsequent event, would not be barred even by the aforesaid amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as it now exists. 9. Law of amendment of pleadings is liberal. Moreover, in the instant case, the amendment was necessitated by death of Norang Singh on 09.01.2010 and the plaintiff promptly moved application for amendment of plaint, and therefore, there was no reason to discard the amendment application. The trial court observed that proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. However, the amendment could not be declined on this ground when the amendment of plaint was sought on the basis of subsequent event i.e. death of Norang Singh during pendency of the suit. During lifetime of Norang Singh, plaintiff possibly could not have sought the relief of possession of his share of the suit land. However, even assuming that even during lifetime of Norang Singh, the plaintiff could have sought the relief of possession, even then amendment of plaint to seek the said relief of possession cannot be declined because law of amendment of pleading is liberal. Moreover, the said amendment is essential for effective and complete adjudication of the lis. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the impugned order of the trial court is illegal and unsustainable. The same suffers from jurisdictional error because learned trial court refused to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it to permit proposed amendment of plaint. 11. Moreover, the said amendment is essential for effective and complete adjudication of the lis. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the impugned order of the trial court is illegal and unsustainable. The same suffers from jurisdictional error because learned trial court refused to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it to permit proposed amendment of plaint. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-4 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application Annexure P-2 moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint is allowed and plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to make proposed amendment in the plaint. ---------0.B.S.0------------