JUDGMENT : Plaintiff/Petitioner filed this petition to quash and set aside the order dated 11.03.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the application filed by the petitioner u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC in Civil Suit No. 22/2013 titled Chandra Prakash Agarwal Vs. Ridhkaran Parasrampuria & Ors. was dismissed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that learned trial Court has wrongly observed that the plaintiff-petitioner cannot file an application u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC after commencement of trial. In fact the petitioner has got no knowledge regarding the acquisition, which reveals from the agreement, reply to the notice, written statement and affidavit of DW-1 Bhagwati Prasad. Learned Counsel also submitted that the amendment application can be filed even after framing of issues, if the amendment which has been sought could not be raised before the commencement of the trial. The present case falls under the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC thus, observation of learned trial Court is not only illegal but against the provisions of law. Learned Counsel further submitted that the defendants did not disclose the fact of acquisition of part of land in question even at the time of execution of the agreement or sending the reply to the notice or filing the written statement or filing of the affidavit of DW-1, therefore, there was no occasion for the writ petitioner that he got knowledge regarding the acquisition thus, the observation of learned trial Court in this regard is on the basis of assumption and presumptions. Learned Counsel also submitted that the proposed amendment came in the knowledge of the petitioner after obtaining the documents from the competent authority regarding acquisition and he immediately filed amendment application u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC. As such the present case is of subsequent event. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to consider the material on record which clearly mentions that the defendant-respondents have concealed the aforesaid facts. In spite of this, the learned trial Court dismissed the application of petitioner filed u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC, whereas the adverse inference has to be drawn against respondents thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that the amendment sought by the petitioner is not only essential but it is required for just decision of the case. He further submitted that the amendment sought by the petitioner is not only essential but it is required for just decision of the case. If the proposed amendment is allowed then no prejudice will cause to the respondents. He also submitted that the proposed amendment would not alter the cause of action or nature of the suit, rather it will minimise the litigation. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner placed reliance on : (1) (2012) 11 SUPREME COURT CASES 341 Abdul Rehman & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. (2) 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 583 (S.C.) Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. (3) 2015 SAR (Civil) 815 Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors. Vs. Nandram (D) through Lrs. & Ors. (4) 2014(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 201 (S.C.) Prithi Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. Amrik Singh & Ors. (5) (2012) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 337 Rameshkumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Rajmala Exports Private Ltd. & Ors. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that before the execution of the agreement for sale of disputed land, the respondents disclosed all the material facts regarding the land in dispute to the plaintiff-petitioner including the fact of acquisition of part of land. The plaintiff-petitioner also inspected the land before the execution of agreement. He also submitted that the notice of acquisition was published in newspapers also. This is not the case of plaintiff-petitioner that in spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, thus, the learned trial Court did not commit any illegality or wrong in dismissing the application for amendment sought by the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that the scope of article 227 of the Constitution is very limited, the present case is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and prayed to dismiss the petition being devoid of merit. Heard rival submissions made by the Learned Counsels of both the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the defendant-respondents executed an agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff-petitioner on dated 22.03.2013 regarding sale of their ¾th share in Khasra No. 703 admeasuring 0.87 hectare and Khasra No. 704 admeasuring 0.95 hectare for consideration of Rs. 6,70,00,000/- (Six Crore Seventy Lac Rupees). The plaintiff-petitioner paid Rs. It is not in dispute that the defendant-respondents executed an agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff-petitioner on dated 22.03.2013 regarding sale of their ¾th share in Khasra No. 703 admeasuring 0.87 hectare and Khasra No. 704 admeasuring 0.95 hectare for consideration of Rs. 6,70,00,000/- (Six Crore Seventy Lac Rupees). The plaintiff-petitioner paid Rs. 1,85,00,000/- (One Crore Eighty Five Lac Rupees) to the defendant-respondents as part payment and it was agreed upon to make payment of balance amount of Rs. 4,85,00,000/- (Four Crore Eighty Five Lac Rupees) upto 31.05.2013. From perusal of aforesaid agreement, it reveals that the defendant-respondents agreed to handover the possession of land in question to the plaintiff-petitioner at the time of execution of sale deed. The defendant-respondents also mentioned that the land is free from all encumbrances and there is specific averment that the land is neither acquired nor Mandir Mafi and is free from disputes. After execution of the agreement, the plaintiff-petitioner served notice through his Advocate to present respondents on dated 29.05.2013 showing his readiness and willingness to perform his duties according to the agreement. The notice was replied by the respondents and thereafter the plaintiff-petitioner filed the civil suit against the defendant-respondents for the relief of specific performance of the contract, injunction and possession. Defendants filed their written statement mentioning that the time was essence of the contract and the plaintiff-petitioner failed to perform his duties thus, the decree of specific performance cannot be enforced. Meanwhile the case was transferred to the Court of ADJ No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The learned trial Court framed issues. Plaintiff-petitioner completed his evidence reserving his right of rebuttal. Thereafter affidavit of DW-1 Bhagwati Prasad was filed and at present the case is at the stage of defendant's evidence. At this stage the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application u/O 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC on dated 26.11.2015 with the averment that part of the land in question has been acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the defendants obtained compensation but they did not disclose this fact in the agreement to sale, even in the reply to the notice, written statement and in affidavit filed by DW-1 Bhagwati Prasad. The defendant-respondents filed reply to the application and denied the case of plaintiff-petitioner mentioning therein that they did not conceal any material fact regarding the land in question from the plaintiff. The defendant-respondents filed reply to the application and denied the case of plaintiff-petitioner mentioning therein that they did not conceal any material fact regarding the land in question from the plaintiff. The defendant-respondents also averred that in agreement, the measurement of the land was mentioned by the plaintiff-petitioner according to the revenue record. Plaintiff-petitioner's case is that just before filing of the application u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC, he came to know that part of the land in question has been acquired by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the defendants obtained compensation whereof but they did not disclose this fact even in the reply to notice, written statement and in affidavit of DW-1 Bhagwati Prasad, rather it was mentioned in the agreement to sale that the land is free from all encumbrances and there is specific averment that land is neither acquired nor Mandir Mafi and the same is free from disputes, therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint and in prayer clause also. In amendment application the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that 200 square meter land of Khasra No. 703 was acquired by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in the year 2010 and the defendants obtained compensation whereof on dated 24.02.2012, prior to the agreement dated 22.03.2013. It is also submitted that notification for acquisition of 2100 square meter land other than aforesaid 200 square meter land, was also published in January 2012, prior to the agreement dated 22.03.2013, but the defendants concealed these material facts and entered into agreement for sale of ¾th share in whole survey No. 703 admeasuring 0.87 hectare. Relevant portion of the agreement to sale which is an admitted document, is as under:- ^^;g fd mDr Hkwfe fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vokfIr esa ugha gS] uk gh efUnj ekQh o vCnqy jgeku lfefr dkuwu dh Hkwfe gSA vxj vkt i’pkr jkT;@dsUnz ljdkj }kjk mDr Hkwfe dks vokIr fd;k tkrk gS rks eqvkotk jkf’k Øsrk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh jgsxk] blesa foØsrkx.k dk fdlh Hkh izdkj dk fojks/k ;k ,rjkt ekU; ugh gksxkA^^ The fact of acquisition of 200 square meter land by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and payment of compensation thereof to defendant-respondents is not mentioned in the agreement. Likewise the fact of notification of acquisition of 2100 square meter land is also not mentioned in the agreement dated 22.03.2013, of which specific performance has been sought by the plaintiff-petitioner. The fact of both the acquisitions is not mentioned in the reply to the notice sent by defendants to the plaintiff, in written statement of defendants and in the affidavit of DW-1 Bhagwati Prasad filed in defendant's evidence. According to plaintiff-petitioner, he came to know about the facts just before filing of the application for amendment. The amendment application filed by plaintiff-petitioner is supported by affidavit thus, at this stage it cannot be said that the fact of both the acquisitions were in the knowledge of plaintiff-petitioner before commencement of the trial. Therefore, the present case of the plaintiff-petitioner falls under the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. As the land in question belongs to the defendants and they did not disclose the fact of acquisition at the time of execution of the agreement or in reply to the notice or in written statement or in affidavit of DW-1 Bhagwati Prasad thus, there was no occasion for the plaintiff-petitioner that he has got knowledge regarding the acquisition. Learned trial Court observed that the proceedings of acquisition were published in the newspapers that is why it can be presumed that the plaintiff has got knowledge regarding the acquisition. To my mind, the observation given by the learned trial Court is merely on the basis of assumption and presumption because no cogent evidence has been submitted by the defendant-respondents to prove that the plaintiff-petitioner has got the knowledge regarding the acquisition, more particularly when the defendants stated in the agreement that the land in question is neither under acquisition nor it has been acquired. In Abdul Rehman & Anr. v. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court observed that the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. After amendment it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. In Abdul Rehman & Anr. v. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court observed that the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. After amendment it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. In Rameshkumar Agarwal & Anr. v. K.K Modi & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the Court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. The rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the court. In Mahila Ramkali & Ors. v. Nandran (D) through Lrs. & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court held that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleadings of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost. In Prithi Pal Singh & Anr. v. Amrik Singh & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at this stage of allowing prayer for amendment. The purpose of amendment is to minimise the litigation. In Rameshkumar Agarwal & Anr. v. Rajmala Exports Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Amrik Singh & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at this stage of allowing prayer for amendment. The purpose of amendment is to minimise the litigation. In Rameshkumar Agarwal & Anr. v. Rajmala Exports Private Ltd. & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court held that while deciding the application for amendment ordinarily the court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit malafide and dishonest amendments. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations. From perusal of the record and considering the submissions of learned counsels, it reveals that the plaintiff-petitioner has got no knowledge regarding the acquisition of part of land in question before commencement of the trial therefore, he could not sought the amendment before commencement of the trial thus, the present case falls under the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It also reveals that the amendment sought by the plaintiff-petitioner is not only essential but also required for just decision of the case in order to shorten the litigation and to sub-serve the ends of justice. To my mind, no malafide on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner is made out and if the order of the learned trial Court is allowed to stand then the valuable rights of the plaintiff-petitioner may be prejudiced whereas, no prejudice will cause to the defendant-respondents, if the proposed amendment is allowed. The defendant-respondents can be compensated with costs for inconvenience, if any, caused to them due to amendment in the plaint. In the light of principles laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court and the discussions made above, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The defendant-respondents can be compensated with costs for inconvenience, if any, caused to them due to amendment in the plaint. In the light of principles laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court and the discussions made above, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is accepted and the impugned order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed with cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Three Thousand Rupees).