JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 24.08.2006 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been rejected. 2. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for partition, inter alia, claiming that Manohar Lal, who was husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was the son of defendant - Khoob Chand; the property mentioned in the suit was built from the joint income of Manohar Lal and Khoob Chand and, based on the said plea, partition of the property indicated in the suit was sought. 3. The suit was resisted by Khoob Chand, inter alia, disputing that Manohar Lal was his son and a counter claim was filed claiming possession over some part of the suit property and for mesne profit. 4. During the pendency of the suit, Khoob Chand expired and his legal representatives i.e. respondent Nos. 2/1 to 2/9 were brought on record; whereafter, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint with the averments that as Manohar Lal was the adopted son of Khoob Chand and as Khoob Chand has died, the plaintiffs were entitled to inherit the properties as legal representatives of Manohar Lal/Khoob Chand. 5. The application was resisted by the defendants. 6. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that on account of taking the legal representatives of Khoob Chand on record the nature of the suit cannot be altered; as the issue which was raised in the suit qua Khoob Chand remains the same i.e. as to whether the suit property was purchased out of joint income of Manohar Lal and Khoob Chand and was their joint property and on account of the amendment, the nature of suit would change from the previous dispute to dispute between the legal representatives and, consequently, dismissed the application. 7. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court committed grave error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners; it was contended that the plaintiffs had sought relief in the suit qua the subject matter based on the fact that the suit property was purchased out of joint income by Manohar Lal and Khoob Chand; once during the pendency of the suit Khoob Chand has died and it was claimed that Manohar Lal was adopted son of Khoob Chand, the plaintiffs became entitled to succeed to the suit property as legal representatives of Khoob Chand as well and, therefore, the amendment in this regard should have been accepted by the trial court and rejecction is contrary to law. 8. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. K.K. Modi & Ors. : 2006 DNJ (SC) 299 , wherein, it was held that if cause of action arises during the pendency of the suit and the proposed amendment does not change the basic structure of the suit, the amendment should be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the amendment sought would change the basic structure of the suit, inasmuch as, the earlier suit was based on acquisition of the property from joint income and the amendment sought is seeking to lay claim to the property as legal representatives of deceased Khoob Chand and there is a dispute regarding the status of deceased Manohar Lal qua Khoob Chand also and, therefore, the amendment if permitted would result in changing the basic structure of the suit, which is not permissible and the trial court was justified in rejecting the application. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 11. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 11. The original suit was filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs based on the following cause of action:- " 9 ( ukS ) ;g fd okni= dh dye uEcj ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl dh tk;nkn oknhx.k dh iwoZ fgrkf/kdkjh Jh euksgj yky th x[kjstk yky HkkbZ rFkk izfroknh }kjk lfEefyr :i ls fd;s x;s O;olk; ls vftZr dh x;h laifRr ls cuk;h x;h gSA ftlds dkj.k oknhx.k dks dyx uEcj ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl dh nksuksa gh tk;nkn esa vk/kk fgLlk izkIr djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj gS ,oa nksuksa gh laifRr esa oknhx.k dk okLrfod :i ls vk/kk fgLlk curk gS ftldks nsus ls izfroknh }kjk euk dj fn;s tkus ds dkj.k oknhx.k dks izfroknh ds fo:) caVokjk tk;nkn gsrq ;g eqdnek izLrqr djus dh vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ pkjk ugha jg x;k gSA " 12. The suit was resisted by Khoob Chand disputing the fact that Manohar Lal was his son and other averments made in the plaint were also denied. 13. During the pendency of the suit when Khoob Chand died and his legal representatives were brought on record, the present application seeking amendment in the plaint was filed; the petitioners sought amendment by way of insertion of certain paragraphs and the plea raised is contained in proposed para 14A, which reads as under:- " fd D;ksafd Jh [kwcpan th dk nsgkolku gks x;k mudh e'R;q ds ckn fgUnw mRrjkf/kdkj ds vUrxZr oknhx.k dk mDr of.kZr lEifRr esa gd fgLlk gks pqdk gS vkSj oknhx.k Jh [kwcpan th ds mRrjkf/kdkjh gSa blfy, ;g ?kks"k.kk djk;k tkuk vko';d gS fd oknhx.k Jh [kwcpan th ds mRrjkf/kdkjh gSa vkSj mRrjkf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs e'rd Jh euksgj yky dh iRuh ,oa iq= gSa vkSj mudk Hkh gd fgLlk bl tk;nkn esa gS vkSj blhfy, ls vk/kk gd fgLlk mDr of.kZr tk;nkn esa izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA " 14. It is interesting to note that the petitioners did not sought any amendment in the relief as already claimed in the plaint; a bare look at the cause of action indicated in the original plaint reveals that the plaintiffs based their claim qua 'half share' in the suit property on the fact that the property was acquired jointly by Manohar Lal and Khoob Chand from the income arising out of the joint business; while in the proposed amendment vide para 14A, it was claimed that on account of death of Khoob Chand, the plaintiffs were entitled to declaration that they were legal representatives of Khoob Chand and, as such, being legal representatives they have 'half share' in the suit property; there is apparent contradiction in the original plea and the plea sought to be raised by the proposed amendment; the petitioners in original plaint have sought half share in the suit property based on the fact that the same was acquired by Manohar Lal alongwith Khoob Chand from out of income generated by joint business; in case the plea, which is now sought to be raised, had any semblance of continuance of the earlier plea, the petitioners would have sought for their share in the legacy of Khoob Chand besides the existing claim of half share in the suit property (based on the same allegedly having been acquired jointly by Manohar Lal and Khoob Chand), however, a bare look at proposed para 14A indicates that the petitioners were seeking to abandon the original plea of property having been acquired jointly by Manohar Lal and Khoob Chand and were seeking half share in the property based on inheritance, which plea also appears to be baseless, inasmuch as, Khoob Chand is survived by nine legal representatives and, even if, the petitioners succeed in establishing Manohar Lal as son of Khoob Chand, they cannot succeed to half of the property. 15. The very fact that the plaintiffs have not sought any amendment in the relief clause clearly indicates that the petitioners were not seeking enhancement of their share in the suit property on account of legal representatives of Khoob Chand besides the share of Manohar Lal as claimed in the original plaint, which clearly indicates their abandonment of original claim as made in the suit. 16. 16. In case the amendment application was allowed and the proposed amendment allowed to be incorporated in the plaint, the same would result in a total contradiction of the plea raised in the original plaint and the plea sought to be raised by the amendment and it cannot be said that the amendment as has been sought only as a consequence of the cause of action having arisen during the pendency of the suit. 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra) held and observed as under:- "18. In our view, since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, Why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. 21..............A reading of the entire plaint and the prayer made thereunder and the proposed amendment would go to show that there was no question of any inconsistency with the case originally made out in the plaint. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide.........." 18. As already noticed hereinbefore, the proposed amendment apparently is not in consonance with the plea already taken in the plaint and the amendment essentially seeks to change the basic structure of the suit and, therefore, the judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra) does not advance the cause of the petitioner. The trial court was therefore, justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. 19. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******