JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Plaintiffs/respondents herein instituted a suit against the sole defendant/petitioner herein, claiming therein, a declaratory relief that they along with the sole defendant, are, joint owners in possession of land measuring 07-00 bighas, borne upon khasra No.744/514/58, Khata Khatauni No. 180/199 min and khasra No.745/514/58/1, Khata Khatauni No.227/256 situated in Village Har Kukhar (Barota), near IPH Colony, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., besides a relief that preparation of a tatima wherein an area of 00-03 biswa is encompassed and is comprised in Khasra No.745/514/58/1, Khatauni No.227/256, as stood separated from khasra No. 744/514/58, Khata Khatauni No.180/199 min being declared as wrong and illegal also possession thereof of the sole defendant being declared wrong and illegal, was, also claimed therein. Moreover, the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the sole defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land and from two rooms situated over the suit land, was, also claimed. 2. The sole defendant/petitioner herein instituted a written statement to the plaint and claimed that carving of 0- 3 biswas of land borne on khasra No.745/514/58/1, khata Khatauni No. 227/256, from, land borne on khasra No. 744/514/58, khata Khatauni No. 180/199, being, legitimate also it was claimed that upon the aforesaid land, in pursuance to valid approvals, for, constructions being raised thereon, thereupon, the defendants subjecting, to, construction the aforesaid khasra number. Consequently, therein it was concerted by the sole defendant, that, the separation of three biswas of land, in, respect whereof tatima reflecting it to be bearing Khasra No. 745/514/58/1, Khata Khatauni No. 227/256, also stood prepared besides issued being valid besides legal, besides it was averred that the plaintiffs holding no right, to belatedly make any challenge in respect thereof nor theirs being entitled to claim possession, of, any construction raised thereon by the sole defendant. 3. 3. However, during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court, an application cast under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, stood, instituted therebefore by the plaintiffs, wherein, they with the leave of the Court concerted incorporation of Para-7-A in the plaint, after, para 7, para whereof stands extracted hereinafter: “7-A. That on dated 13.06.2015, the defendant along with his family members broke the lock of three storey house, ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd Floor consisting two shops in the ground floor and the same construction of the 1st and 2nd floor and dispossessed the plaintiff forcibly from the said shops including the 1st and 2nd floor. The plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the said two shops along with the 1st and 2nd floor from the defendant after evicting the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitle to the damages @ Rs.2,000/- per month from 13.06.2015 till the realization of the amount for the illegal occupation of the said house cum shop.” 4. The application was resisted by the sole defendant by his filing reply thereto. The resistance to the application by the sole defendant, is, grooved, on grounds para materia vis-a-vis the grounds embodied in his written statement instituted to the plaint. The application was allowed by the learned trial Court. The defendant is aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted the instant petition before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant, has contended with vigour that the amendment was, not, amenable for its being allowed, given the plaintiffs holding no right, title or interest upon the suit land. Also he contended with vigour, that denotations in the apt tatima in respect of trite khasra No. 745/514/58/1, being in accordance with law besides constructions raised thereon by the sole defendant, being, in pursuance to validly sanctioned building plans. The aforesaid endeavour made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/petitioner herein, to, strip the validities of the impugned order pronounced by the learned trial Court, does ultimately impinge upon the competing rights of the contesting parties in respect of constructions raised upon khasra No.745/514/58/1 also does ultimately devolves, upon, the validities of carving of khasra No.745/514/58/1, from, a larger chunk of land borne upon khasra No.744/514/58. Apart therefrom, the learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner herein/defendant has, not, been able to demonstrate that “upon” the amendment being allowed, it would beget a change in the nature, complexion and structure of the suit, nor he has been able to demonstrate that in the garb of the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs striving to rear new causes of action, which otherwise was/were available to be reared along with causes of action initially reared in the plaint, nor obviously he has been able to demonstrate that the causes of action, in respect of incorporation whereof, the apt leave of the Court is sought, hence, subject to just exceptions, standing barred by the principle of estopple constituted in Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC. Apparently, prima facie with causes of action, in respect of incorporation whereof, in the plaint, the leave of the Court is sought, arising, subsequent to the institution of the suit rather precisely on 30.06.2015, whereas, the suit standing instituted in the year 2013. Therefrom, the apt sequitur, is, with the plaintiff, for want of apt accruals thereat, hence, being initially barred to rear all the averments in respects thereof, whereas, in contemporaneity of their accrual, he has with the leave of the Court, sought their incorporation in the plaint, therefrom it is befitting to conclude that the bar of estopple, subject to just exceptions, constituted in Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC, whereby, all causes of action arising in contemporaneity, of, the institution of the suit are enjoined to be included initially in the plaint, being squarely not attracted hereat. Nor ill interdicting effects thereof against averments in respect of incorporations thereof, with the leave of the Court in the plaint, is also not attracted hereat. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed and the impugned orders are maintained and affirmed. No order as to costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.