JUDGMENT Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J.:- The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of contract of mortgage dated 02.07.1999 against the respondent in respect of the suit shop morefully described in the headnote of the plaint. Permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the respondent from usurping the suit shop. 2. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint averring, therein, that there is relationship of tenants and landlord between the parties and that the agreement dated 02.07.1999 was created in order to avoid the provisions of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. They also averred that they were shown as tenants in the suit shop by the respondent at monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. So, the agreement of mortgage (supra) is only a sham transaction. It was prayed that they want to add Para No. 1(a) in the plaint to the effect that there is relationship of tenants and landlord respectively between the parties. They also want to take this plea in the end of Para 10. They also averred that the proposed amendment is very much necessary for the proper decision of the case. Consequently, prayer for acceptance of application was,thus, made. 3. In reply, respondent averred that the petitioners have no right to change their stand and the proposed amendment shall change the nature of the suit. It was also averred that he has filed a counter-claim for mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to receive a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from him and deliver the possession of the suit shop to him. It was further averred that the proposed amendment is not necessary, and it will change the nature of the suit. It was also averred that the suit shop does not fall within the municipal limits of Rajpura. So, it was averred that relationship of tenants and landlord between the parties does not exist. Consequently, prayer for dismissal of application was, thus, made. 4. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2004 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the application of the petitioners. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners who are plaintiffs before the trial Court have come up in this civil revision with the prayer for acceptance thereof, and for acceptance of their application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC that was dismissed by the Court. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners who are plaintiffs before the trial Court have come up in this civil revision with the prayer for acceptance thereof, and for acceptance of their application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC that was dismissed by the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the proposed amendment is very much necessary for just decision of the case, that may be allowed. He also contended that the trial in the suit has not begun. He also contended that dismissal of application will result in denial of protection granted to the petitioners under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that proposed amendment is inconsistent with the plea that has been taken by the petitioners in the plaint. He contended that in the plaint, the petitioners are claiming themselves to be mortgagees and through proposed amendment, they want to make a somersault that cannot be allowed. 7. Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The petitioners are blowing hot and cold in the same breath. On the one hand, they are saying that they are proposed mortgagees in the suit shop on the basis of agreement of mortgage dated 02.07.1999, while on the contrary through amendment sought for, they are claiming themselves to be the tenants in the suit shop. The petitioners are, thus, by taking inconsistent pleas, through proposed amendment, are going to contradict their earlier stand. 9. This Court in Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Shanti Lal, 2008 (2) R.C.R(Civil) 452 held that all the amendments that are helpful in effectively deciding the controversy between the parties must be allowed liberally to avoid delay and multiplicity of litigation. The only exception is that the party cannot be allowed to change the cause of action and basic nature of the suit nor an inconsistent plea can be added by way of amendment. If the amendment can be allowed without any prejudice to the other party, even delay will be no bar for allowing amendments. 10. In view of this judgement, the proposed amendment cannot be allowed to the petitioners, as that will change the nature of cause of action, as also, the basic nature of the suit. If the amendment can be allowed without any prejudice to the other party, even delay will be no bar for allowing amendments. 10. In view of this judgement, the proposed amendment cannot be allowed to the petitioners, as that will change the nature of cause of action, as also, the basic nature of the suit. The proposed plea of amendment is inconsistent plea, so far as, the earlier plea taken in the plaint is concerned. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh 2006 (6) BCR 710 held that amendment in the written statement may be allowed to take inconsistent plea, but may not be allowed in case of plaint. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Raj Kishore Singh and another 2000 AIR (SC) 3577 held that the amendment cannot be allowed, as the nature of dispute would change drastically. 13. Fact, thus, remains that the proposed amendment is repugnant to the plea already taken by the petitioners in the plaint. They are seeking specific performance of contract by claiming themselves to be proposed mortgagees in the suit shop and now, through the amendment sought, they must be precluded from claiming themselves to be tenants, therein. 14. There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and the same is, hereby, upheld and affirmed. 15. Resultantly, the present civil revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs. --------------