Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. Claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the land, the plaintiffs, respondents herein, had made an application before the court below for amendment of their plaint which was allowed by the lower court vide impugned order of 12.9.2013 (Annexure P-7). It is against this order that the defendant Gram Panchayat, petitioner herein, has filed this revision petition claiming that at the fag end of the trial when the final adjudication is going to be made by the court below, amendment of the pleadings would amount to setting up entirely a new case by the respondents-plaintiffs and would, in fact, result in de-novo trial. Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, on the other hand, has urged that it is mandatory for the court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Support in this regard has been sought from Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K. Modi and others 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 577 (Supreme Court). 2. Hearing has been provided. 3. Facts are not disputed. There is consistent case of the respondents-plaintiffs that they are owners in possession of the suit land and the Gram Panchayat has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, the Gram Panchayat, petitioner herein, is also consistent that the land belongs to it and though was in possession of respondents-plaintiffs as trespassers, had been got vacated from them since long and thereafter was being leased out on year to year basis to the highest bidder at the auctions held every year for the purpose. It is also urged that now Primary Health Centre has also come up on the land and the respondents-plaintiffs have neither possession nor any interest in the land. 4. Revenue documents filed even by the respondents-plaintiffs unequivocally reveal that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land. The respondents-plaintiffs have been in litigation with the Gram Panchayat. The respondents-plaintiffs though were emboldened by order dated 25.4.2005 of Assistant Collector First Grade, Gurgaon who had adjudicated the matter in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs holding them as occupants/tenants. The Gram Panchayat then had filed an appeal against the said orders of Assistant Collector First Grade, Gurgaon. The respondents-plaintiffs have been in litigation with the Gram Panchayat. The respondents-plaintiffs though were emboldened by order dated 25.4.2005 of Assistant Collector First Grade, Gurgaon who had adjudicated the matter in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs holding them as occupants/tenants. The Gram Panchayat then had filed an appeal against the said orders of Assistant Collector First Grade, Gurgaon. District Collectors, Gurgaon vide his order dated 31.3.2006 had accepted appeal of the Gram Panchayat and reversing order dated 25.4.2005 of the Assistant Collector First Grade, had rather ordered that the respondents-plaintiffs would pay ` 10,000/- per hectare for keeping possession of the land which they illegally retained without any grant, lease or license in their favour. 5. Though the respondents-plaintiffs have not been able to establish any payment having been made to the Gram Panchayat but it is a conceded fact that even if any person not being a lessee of the land of the Gram Panchayat deposits some amount claiming himself to be so, he does not become the lessee under the Gram Panchayat and his possession is deemed to be illegal. 6. It is not a disputed fact that a big building of Primary Health Centre has come up on the land. When the respondents-plaintiffs had been watching the construction of Primary Health Centre being raised for years together, not even a whisper was made by them either before the civil court or before any other revenue court. 7. Merely because the civil court had passed an order in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs that they would not be dispossessed except in due course of law by itself, is of no consequence because the respondents/trespassers in proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 had already been dispossessed in accordance with law and the Gram Panchayat has been leasing out the said land to the highest bidders on year to year basis. Records of 2008-09 and 2009-10 was also produced before the Collector showing therein that lease was granted for the year 2008-09 on 14.5.2008 and for the year 2009-10 on 12.6.2009 to the highest bidder in an open auction held for the purpose. Records of 2008-09 and 2009-10 was also produced before the Collector showing therein that lease was granted for the year 2008-09 on 14.5.2008 and for the year 2009-10 on 12.6.2009 to the highest bidder in an open auction held for the purpose. Thereafter, Primary Health Centre for the welfare of the villages and of nearby areas has already come up after passing of resolution by the Gram Panchayat on 17.3.2008 giving land to the Primary Health Centre, Health Department, Haryana for establishing the centre for the welfare of the people. 8. It is also worth notice only on 17.3.2008 that the application for seeking amendment in the plaint was made i.e., after many years of construction of the Primary Health Centre. At this stage, the very nuances and contours of the litigation between the parties in the civil court below have already changed and the suit is at the final stage of adjudication. The amendment sought for has also no relevance because it would neither determine the real questions in controversy nor would in any way help adjudication of the matter in dispute. When it is accepted proposition that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and was continuously being leased out to highest bidder every year and thereafter, Primary Health Centre has also already come up and is functional since long, there is no right, title or interest at all of the respondents-plaintiffs in the matter. 9. It is strange that instead of deciding the suit, the lower court fell prey to the adjudication of the application for amendment made by the respondents-plaintiffs and without taking entire facts and circumstances into consideration very casually decided the said application. There is absolutely no merit in the application which was also filed very belatedly. Rather, filing of the application is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court by the respondents-plaintiffs. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as discussed earlier, setting aside the impugned order dated 12.9.2013 (Annexure P-7) passed by the lower court and accepting this revision petition, the application for amendment of plaint (Annexure P-5) of the respondents-plaintiffs is dismissed with costs of ` 10,000/-.