Judgment Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24.1.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Una in Civil Suit No. 63/08, whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the original defendants. Later on, it appears that plaintiff sought amendment of the suit by moving an application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC for arraying the brother and sister of the defendants, namely Rajesh Kumar and Kanta Devi, as party defendants on the ground that they were now interfering in the suit property. 3. The amendment proposed reads as under:- “4-A. That during the pendency of the suit, since the last week of March, 2011, the defendants No. 4 & 5 who also have no respect for law and order started threatening the plaintiff to interfere, to change the nature, to have forcible passage through the courtyard of plaintiff for their cattle and to dismantle the southern wall and gate of plaintiff forcibly without any right and title which act of the defendants No. 4 & 5 is highly illegal and unwarranted. The defendants No. 4 & 5 have been airing such threats at the instance and provocation of defendants No. 1 to 3, who are their near relatives” 4. The respondents have contested the application by raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and the applicant having not approached the court with clean hands. The application was stated to be not maintainable as the allegations as based constitute a separate cause of action. On merits, the averments were denied. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that amendment sought for in fact was based upon distinct and separate cause of action and therefore, the plaint could not be ordered to be amended and accordingly dismissed the application. 5. Sh. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contents that order passed by the learned court below is wrong, illegal and reflects hyper-technical approach adopted by the learned trial court. He further contended that court below has acted with illegality and material irregularity while passing the impugned order. 6. 5. Sh. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contents that order passed by the learned court below is wrong, illegal and reflects hyper-technical approach adopted by the learned trial court. He further contended that court below has acted with illegality and material irregularity while passing the impugned order. 6. I have considered the arguments of the leaned counsel for the petitioner and find that the order passed by the learned court below is in consonance with law. The interference by a stranger to the suit cannot be termed to be a continuation of a cause in a case of interference and equated with the interference by a party to the suit. It would be seen from the proposed amendment that distinct and separate allegations have been raised against the proposed defendants No. 4 and 5, who admittedly are strangers to the suit. 7. The alleged interference at the instance of proposed defendants No. 4 and 5 would constitute a distinct and separate cause of action, which cannot be clubbed with the original cause of action. Therefore, I find no illegality and infirmity with the order passed by the learned court below and accordingly the same is upheld and the present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.