JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 11.7.2014 passed by the trial court rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Order I, Rule 10 CPC in the suit as well as T.I. Application seeking amendment in the plaint/application and impleadment of one Ramnarayan as party defendant. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for partition being heir of late Shri Bhagwan Das against the legal representative of Late Shri Sanwar Mal and Vinod Kumar Sharma, her brothers. Along with the suit, an application seeking temporary injunction was also filed. The suit was confined to a house property situated at Mahamandir. It was indicated in the suit that another brother Ramnarayan Sharma had obtained his share and had executed an agreement and therefore, his presence was not required. 3. In the written statement an objection was raised by the defendants that an agriculture land belonging to late Shri Bhagwan Das was not included in the suit for partition and a suit for partial partition was not maintainable. 4. The petitioner filed replication and sought to plead that as the dispute about the said land was pending before the revenue court, the inclusion of the said property in the suit was not necessary. However, on being advised, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Order I, Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead her brother Ramnarayan Sharma and to include the agriculture land also as subject matter of the suit. 5. The application was opposed by the defendants and after hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the amendment can only be granted if despite due diligence the party could not have raised the matter earlier and the plea having been raised in the written statement, on account of pendency of the revenue suit, the property was not included and it is not the case of the plaintiff that the revenue suit has come to an end and therefore, the facts which were in the knowledge of the plaintiff earlier cannot be permitted to be added and the amendment was also not necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties. 6. 6. Regarding the temporary injunction application, the trial court came to the conclusion that there was no dispute relating to the agriculture land and the same was not the subject matter of the application seeking temporary injunction and therefore, the application was liable to be rejected and consequently, dismissed both the applications. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court took too pedantic view in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, the defendant has raised objection about the maintainability of the suit for partial partition and therefore, though in the opinion of the plaintiff inclusion of the property was not necessary, but to obviate any complication, it was necessary to amend the plaint and the amendment was necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 8. It was further submitted that as Ramnarayan Sharma had only relinquished his share in the house and had a share in the agriculture land, his presence was also necessary based on the amendment and as such, the application deserves to be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. It was submitted that the entire exercise made by the petitioner has been to some how delay the proceedings in the suit and on account of passing of the interim order, the respondents are suffering immensely. 11. It was further submitted that having taken a plea in the replication regarding there being no necessity of seeking partition of agriculture land, the petitioner cannot now turn around and seek the amendment. The pleadings as they stand shall have to be determined by the trial court and the petitioner has to suffer the consequences of not including the property in the plaint despite objection raised by the defendants in the first instance. 12. It was also contended that the amendment in the temporary injunction application and impleadment of Ramnarayan Sharma is wholly malafide, inasmuch as, no relief in the temporary injunction application qua the agriculture land has been sought and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have considered the rival submissions. 14. 12. It was also contended that the amendment in the temporary injunction application and impleadment of Ramnarayan Sharma is wholly malafide, inasmuch as, no relief in the temporary injunction application qua the agriculture land has been sought and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have considered the rival submissions. 14. From the facts noted hereinbefore, it is apparent that the plaintiff was seeking partition of property belonging to her father Bhagwan Das, who apparently had two properties, a house at Mahamandir and agriculture land. The suit was initially confined to the house and she did not implead her third brother Ramnarayan Sharma contending that he had relinquished his share in the property situated at Mahamandir, 15. In the written statement, the defendants raised objection about seeking partial partition and suit being not maintainable for non-inclusion of agriculture land. The plaintiff, as advised, filed replication and indicated that on account of pendency of the revenue suit, the same was not necessary. It appears that thereafter it dawned on the plaintiff that irrespective of pendency of the suit the agriculture land needs to be included in the suit for partition as a suit for partial partition is only maintainable in rare circumstances and such rarity may not be available in the present case and where after, the present application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint and as Ramnarayan Sharma had a share in the agriculture land to implead him as a party. 16. It further appears that as a routine the application for amendment was filed in the T.I. Application also without even considering that no injunction was sought qua the agriculture land. 17. The requirement of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC primarily are that at any stage of proceedings the pleadings may be amended. The fundamental requirement being that such amendment should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Of course, the proviso restricts the exercise of such power. 18. 17. The requirement of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC primarily are that at any stage of proceedings the pleadings may be amended. The fundamental requirement being that such amendment should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Of course, the proviso restricts the exercise of such power. 18. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the agriculture land also is part of estate of Bhagwan Das and inclusion of the said property in the suit was necessary, irrespective of pendency of the revenue suit, which apparently had nothing to do with the partition of the properties and therefore, it cannot be said that the amendment sought was not necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application seeking amendment of the plaint and consequently, the application seeking amendment deserved acceptance. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner first took a plea that such inclusion was not necessary and where after filed the application seeking amendment leading to delay in the proceedings, it would be required of the petitioner to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents. 19. Further the attempt on part of the petitioner to seek amendment in the T.I. Application in a routine manner without adverting to the requirement, as no injunction was being sought qua the agriculture land, gives credence to the plea raised by the defendants that the petitioner was seeking to delay the disposal of temporary injunction application. 20. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Order I, Rule 10 CPC is allowed subject to the payment of cost. The petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint and implead Ramnarayan Sharma as party defendant to the suit. However, the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in the temporary injunction application is upheld. 21. The trial court is directed to decide the temporary injunction application as expeditiously as possible.Petition Partly allowed. *******