JUDGMENT S.P. GARG, J. 1. The plaintiff has instituted the instant suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with its ownership and possession with regard to the suit property shown in Red colour in the site plan filed as Annexure ‘A.’ It is averred that by a registered Agreement to Sell dated 28.09.2004, the suit property bearing No. 16-A, Regal Building, Cannought Place, New Delhi-110001, was purchased from Shikha Properties Pvt. Ltd. It was a fully constructed property which, inter alia, included ground floor admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. mezzanine admeasuring 800 sq. ft. and first floor admeasuring 6000 sq. ft. roof admeasuring 12000 sq. ft. as also the entire back portion on the ground floor admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. The entire area acquired by the plaintiff company was shown in purple and red colour in the site plan attached as Annexure ‘A.’ The plaintiff further averred that the defendants are the owner of the adjoining property bearing No. 17 after purchase by an Agreement to Sell dated 14.07.2004 from Shikha Properties Pvt. Ltd. It was admeasuring 2361 sq. ft. as shown in green colour in Annexure ‘A.’ In the written statement, the defendants controverted the assertions of the plaintiff and alleged that forged and fabricated documents have been filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint. The plaintiff has no right even to the land behind its own premises. Shikha Properties Pvt. Ltd. could not have agreed to sell the vacant land at the back of Shop No. 17 as it had no title or interest therein and it vested in NDMC. The plaintiff was challaned by NDMC on 08.03.2006 for encroachment of that area. The site plan annexed to the agreement to sell is a fabricated document. The land being a vacant one vested in NDMC, no right therein could have been conveyed by the vendor to the plaintiff. 2. Undertaking was given by the defendants on 03.04.2006 before this Court not to raise any construction on the vacant land in the portion marked red in the site plan attached as Annexure ‘A’ to the plaint. It was also recorded therein that neither party would use the portion marked red in the site plan till the next date of hearing. 3. It was also recorded therein that neither party would use the portion marked red in the site plan till the next date of hearing. 3. On 21.10.2013, this Court while hearing various IAs observed that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had claimed to have executed a Rectification Deed with the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest in title in respect of the suit property. However, there were no pleadings made in the suit with regard to the execution of the Rectification Deed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff then sought leave to amend the plaint. The matter was adjourned to 21.1.2014 permitting the plaintiff to move an appropriate application subject to right of the defendants to oppose it. Subsequently, the IA in question was moved to seek amendment. 4. The plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint to incorporate the subsequent factum of execution of Rectification Deed with the vendor. He also proposes to amend the plaint to incorporate the subsequent event whereby order dated 3.04.2006 was flouted by the defendants. The amendment application is under contest by the defendants. It is alleged that the Rectification Deed has been executed during the pendency of the suit to circumvent the real issues. The purported document i.e. Rectification Deed, does not confer any ownership rights over the land falling conjoint to shop No.17, Regal Building, Cannought Place, New Delhi-110001 which is part of common/public land as per the Resolution No. 7/1978-79 of NDMC dated 07.07.1978. The defendants have easementary rights over it. The said area was never in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff under the garb of Rectification Deed intends to illegally incorporate open/common land falling behind the shop of defendants i.e. 17 Regal Building, Cannought Place, New Delhi-110001. The Rectification Deed dated 29.08.2006 does not show the subject land to have been sold to the plaintiff. It is an attempt to fill the lacuna in the suit which is not maintainable on facts and law. It is further pleaded that the application seeking amendment of plaint on the basis of Rectification Deed dated 29.08.2006 is barred by limitation as seeking declaration of title and injunction on the basis of purported document while introducing a fresh cause of action alleged to have occurred in August and October, 2006 would be barred by limitation. It is further pleaded that the application seeking amendment of plaint on the basis of Rectification Deed dated 29.08.2006 is barred by limitation as seeking declaration of title and injunction on the basis of purported document while introducing a fresh cause of action alleged to have occurred in August and October, 2006 would be barred by limitation. The suit for permanent injunction simplicitor instituted by the plaintiff is not maintainable when there is clear cloud over his right in respect of the common/public land. The plaintiff can not be permitted to overcome the shortcomings and falsehood of the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions/controversy between the parties. The plaintiff intends to incorporate only subsequent events whereby Rectification Deed was executed with the vendor. Learned counsel for the defendant vehemently urged that the proposed amendments cannot be permitted to be allowed as it would change the nature of the suit. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim ownership over a piece of land on the basis of Rectification Deed when, in fact, it is a common area maintained by NDMC. The plaintiff has even been challaned for encroachment of that area by NDMC. The land agencies L&DO and NDMC have disputed ownership of the land with the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest. The Rectification Deed cannot confer ownership of the public land in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have enjoyed easementary rights over it. The site plans filed by the plaintiff are contradictory. The proposed amendments are not permissible and are barred by limitation. Reliance has been placed on Ravajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanswamy and Sons & Others, (2009) 10 SCC 84 and A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 . 6. The plaintiff has instituted the suit for permanent injunction simplicitor claiming ownership of the suit land to restrain the defendants from interfering in its ownership and possession. The premises in questions were purchased vide agreement to sell dated 28.09.2004 and the entire area has been depicted in colour red and purple in the site plan attached as Annexure ‘A.’ The vacant land behind the property bearing No. 16A has been shown in colour Red in the said site plan. The premises in questions were purchased vide agreement to sell dated 28.09.2004 and the entire area has been depicted in colour red and purple in the site plan attached as Annexure ‘A.’ The vacant land behind the property bearing No. 16A has been shown in colour Red in the said site plan. From the very inception, the plaintiff’s case is that the entire back portion on the ground floor admeasuring 1200 feet was sold to him among other areas by an agreement to sell dated 28.09.2004. Area purchased by the defendants by an agreement to sell dated 14.07.2004 was reflected in Green colour in Annexure ‘A.’ In the written statement, defendants plea is that the portion shown in the colour Red in the site plan as Annexure ‘A’ is a public land and it belongs to NDMC. The plaintiff has been challaned for encroachment over this land. Shikha Properties Pvt. Ltd. had no right, title or interest on the said land to sell it to the plaintiff. At no stage in the written statement, the defendants claimed the said area to have been sold to them by the vendor or that it was in their possession. 7. Subsequently, Rectification Deed dated 29.08.2006 was executed between the plaintiff and Shikha Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Original has been placed on record). Its relevant portion reads:- “AND WHEREAS certain mistakes and inaccuracies have accidently and inadvertently crept in the schedule at page 110 and map of the principal deed at page 114 and 115 which require rectification without changing the schedule property of the principal deed in the manner hereinafter appearing. It further reads: (A) In the schedule of property in the principal deed at page 110, after the word 1200 sq. ft. (approx) and before the word together the following sentence be incorporated, lying and situated just behind the structural wall (which does not bear any window/ventilator/ exhaust fan opening/door) of the shop room No. 17 and upon rectification the schedule be read and be as follows. ft. (approx) and before the word together the following sentence be incorporated, lying and situated just behind the structural wall (which does not bear any window/ventilator/ exhaust fan opening/door) of the shop room No. 17 and upon rectification the schedule be read and be as follows. (B) That the two existing maps of the principal deed annexed at page 114 and 115 do not cover the specific boundary line and/or identity of the entire schedule property of the principal deed and for which the existing two maps of the principal deed be substituted by the following four maps annexed with this deed which will identify the boundaries of the scheduled properties without changing and or modifying the scheduled property of the principal deed.” 8. Apparently, the Rectification Deed appears to have been executed for correction of certain mistakes and inaccuracies that emerged accidently and inadvertently as so mentioned in it. The validity/authenticity/admissibility of this Rectification Deed will be decided only after the parties adduce their respective evidence. Objections taken by the defendants alleging the Rectification Deed as fraudulent document executed to fill up the lacunae cannot be considered at this juncture. The parties are still at pre-trial stage and issues have not yet been settled. The plaintiff was given liberty to move the IA for amendment by an order dated 21.10.2013 to enable it to incorporate the factum of execution of the Rectification Deed in the plaint. Onus will be upon the plaintiff to prove that the open piece of land shown in colour Red in the site plan Annexure ‘A’ was purchased for consideration from the vendor who had the title, right or interest therein. The proposed amendment seeks to incorporate the subsequent events i.e. execution of Rectification Deed. The proposed amendments if allowed would not change the nature and character of the case as from the very inception, the plaintiff has claimed the ownership/possession of suit land shown in colour Red in Annexure ‘A.’ The amendments do not introduce an entirely new or inconsistent case to take the defendants by surprise. To overcome the defendants’ objection in the written statement, Rectification Deed has been executed to elaborately describe the suit property sold by the vendor to the plaintiff. The proposed amendment merely clarifies the existing pleadings and does not in substance add to or alter it. To overcome the defendants’ objection in the written statement, Rectification Deed has been executed to elaborately describe the suit property sold by the vendor to the plaintiff. The proposed amendment merely clarifies the existing pleadings and does not in substance add to or alter it. It is relevant to note that the vendor for both the plaintiff and the defendant is Shikha Properties Pvt. Ltd. The proposed amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to determine the real controversy effectively between the parties. The defendants will be at liberty to take all such objections/pleas in their written statement to the amended plaint and to agitate during trial. Whether the suit property is a public land owned by NDMC or L&DO or not will be determined only after the parties are given fair opportunity to lead their evidence. Since it is a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor and no declaration as such has been sought, the proposed amendment cannot be considered to be barred by limitation. For delay and inconvenience, defendants can be compensated with costs. 9. In the light of the above discussion, the proposed amendment are allowed subject to cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. 10. The I.A. stands disposed of. C.S. (OS) 452 of 2006. 11. Amended plaint has already been filed. Copy of the amended plaint be made available to the defendants within seven days. 12. Written statement (if any) to the amended plaint will be filed within four weeks. Replication (if any) shall be filed before the next date of hearing.