JUDGMENT 1. - In both the above writ petitions, order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the Civil judge (Sr. Dn.), Hanumangarh in Civil Case No. 40/2006 is under challenge. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4612/2010 has prayed for quashing order impugned dated 5.2.2010 to the extent of rejecting prayer for amendment in paras 2(ka), 2(kha) and 2(cha) and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8241/2010 the defendant-petitioner is challenging order dated 5.2.2010 to the extent of allowing amendment in paras 2(ka), 2(gha) and 2(da) in the suit. 3. As per facts of the case, Gajan Ram plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale dated 30.1.1989 and perpetual injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hanumangarh. In the suit, an application was filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. wherein it is prayed that suit has been filed for specific performance of agreement to sale dated 30.1.1989 in which para 2 sub-para (gha), para 10 sub-paras (ka) and (gha) amendment is necessary because mistake has been committed bonafide in the detail of agricultural land. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the suit mistake was committed with regard to kila No. 4 stone No. 40/301 whereas kila No. 4 is situated in stone No. 40/302, therefore, the said stone mentioned in the agreement to sale due to mistake of deed writer may be amended and in the agreement impugned, in place of 40/302, stone No. 401301 may be corrected. The petitioner further prayed in the application that respondent filed an application against son of petitioner Mahendra under Section 183(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and, in the reply to the said proceedings before the Tehsildar, Pilibanga, Mahendra stated that his father is In possession of the agriculture land on the basis of agreement to sale and petitioner fled an application on 3.8.2006 to implead him as party. The Tehsildar, Pilibanga impleaded the petitioner as party in the said proceedings vide order dated 1.11.2006 but, after filing reply by the petitioner, the Tehsildar, Pilibanga allowed the application of the respondent and passed order to hand over possession of the agriculture land to respondent while considering that the petitioner and his son are trespassers. 5. The above order was passed on 26.2.2007, against which, appeal is filed before the Addl. District Collector, Hanumangarh. That, too, was dismissed on 17.12.2007. 5. The above order was passed on 26.2.2007, against which, appeal is filed before the Addl. District Collector, Hanumangarh. That, too, was dismissed on 17.12.2007. The petitioner further preferred revision before the Board of Revenue and said revision petition is pending before the Revenue Board. 6. The Tehsildar Pilibanga passed order to hand over possession of the agriculture land to the respondent during the pendency of the suit, therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff sought amendment in the prayer clause with regard to possession of the agricultural land of Chak 9 P.B.N. Tehsildar Pilibanga, Stone No. 40/301 Killa Nos. 17, 18, 24 and Stone No. 40/302 Killa No. 4, measuring 4 bigha may be given to the petitioner and till the transfer of possession of the disputed land mesne profit to the tune of T 6,000/- per bigha per year may be given to the petitioner-plaintiff along with interest. 7. Theo application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. was partly allowed by the impugned order and trial Court allowed the amendment up to the extent that Killa No. 4 Stone No. 40/301 is allowed to be corrected in red ink as Killa No. 4 Stone No. 40/302 in the agreement to sale dated 30.1.1989 but the prayer of the petitioner with regard to possession of the land in dispute and mesne profit has been dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that during pendency of the suit when possession was taken by the respondents under the order of the Tehsildar Pilibanga, then, obviously the trial Court ought to have considered the prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the prayer for mesne profits but the trial Court specifically denied the amendment which is totally erroneous, therefore, it is prayed that the order impugned may be quashed to the extent of denial of prayer for possession and mesne profits. 9. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who filed writ petition against the same order dated 5.2.2010 whereby application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. by the plaintiff-respondent (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8241/2010) is partly allowed, submits that the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff was to be dismissed as a whole because in the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sale has been filed after long delay with the contention that the plaintiff is in possession of the land and controversy with regard to dispossessing the petitioner's son Is still pending before the Board of Revenue, therefore, as per counsel for the respondent (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8241/2010), no such amendment can be allowed till final adjudication is made by the revenue Courts. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the order impugned dated 5.2.2010 is erroneous to the extent of allowing amendment because by the.impugned order the trial Court not only allowed the amendment in the suit but passed an order to amend the agreement itself to the extent of substituting Killa No 4, Stone No. 40/302 instead of Killa No. 4, Stone No. 40/301 without any provision of law and passed order under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. therefore, the trial Court has committed an error while allowing the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. and impugned order deserves to be quashed and respondent's prayer for allowing other amendment (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4612/2010) also deserves to be dismissed. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. 12. Admittedly, the suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in the Court of Civil judge (Sr. Dn.), Hanumangarh on 26.8.2006 in which it is specifically pleaded by him that he is in possession of the land in question, therefore, the respondents may be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession; meaning thereby, on the one hand, suit was filed by the petitioner that he is in possession and no prayer is made in the suit for possession and mesne profits, then, obviously till decision by the revenue Court it cannot be said that any right accrued in favour of the petitioner to claim any amendment in the suit. Whether the petitioner was in possession upon the land in question or not is to be decided by the trial Court because, in the agreement, it is nowhere stated that possession was given to the petitioner. In view of above, the prayer of the petitioner for amendment with regard to possession and mesne profits is hereby rejected. 13. I have examined the order impugned dated 5.2.2010 whereby amendment was allowed in part by the trial Court. It is very strange that without any jurisdiction the civil Court passed an order to correct the averments made in the agreement with regard to number of Stone which is not permissible under the law because no adding or deletion in the language of the agreement upon which suit has been filed can be permitted by the civil Court. 14. It is settled principle of law that if any amendment is to be made in the agreement arrived at in between the parties, then, it is for the parties to the agreement to execute deed of correction but it is not for the civil Court to allow amendment in the document upon which suit is based and to allow amendment in the suit accordingly. Therefore, there is strength in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8241/2010, that order impugned dated 5.2.2010 deserves to be quashed. 15. On the basis of above discussion, the writ petition filed by plaintiff Gajan Ram (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4612/2010) is hereby dismissed and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8241/2010 filed by defendant Jasram is allowed and order impugned dated 5.2.2010, whereby application filed by plaintiff Gajanram was allowed in parjand order was passed, is hereby quashed and set aside.Petition No. 4612/2010 dismissed/Petition No. 8241/2010 allowed. *******