ORDER : 1. The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition is claiming for the following relief’s :- “(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 06.10.2016 (Annex.11) passed by the learned Civil Judge, District Jodhpur in Civil Appeal (Decree) No. 42/2015 (Shrikishan Vs. Smt. Saroj Saini) may kindly be set aside and consequence thereof the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff-respondents may kindly be rejected with costs. (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The facts as noticed by this Court are that the respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction (prohibitory injunction) against the petitioner-defendant and claimed additional relief pertaining to possession of the premises in-question. The plaintiffs and defendant are brother and sisters and the plaintiff claimed in his plaint that the disputed plot no. 168 was given on licence to Smt. Kishanpyari on 29.4.1982 by the UIT and Smt. Kishanpyari sold the said property to Smt. Suraj Kanwar W/o. Shri Manohar Lal, who was mother of plaintiffs and the defendant on 22.4.1985 by a written agreement to sell on certain conditions. All the consideration payable under the transaction was paid at the same time. Smt. Suraj Kanwar expired in the year 1992. The defendant-petitioner was in joint possession with Smt. Suraj Kanwar in the said property since 1991 and after death of Suraj Kanwar, the petitioner claims to have exclusive possession till date and has also made construction of house. The respondent-plaintiff are alleged to have got a registered sale-deed subsequent to the earlier litigation, which was decided in favour of petitioner, which is said to have happened on 16.6.2006. The defendant-petitioner filed a written statement in the plaint and submitted that the sale-deed dated 16.6.2006 was an eye-wash and is bad in the eye of law. The learned court below after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit while passing a decree on 07.10.2015. While the suit was pending, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment and the same was dismissed by the learned court below before passing of decree. The learned court below after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit while passing a decree on 07.10.2015. While the suit was pending, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment and the same was dismissed by the learned court below before passing of decree. The respondent-plaintiff while filing appeal against the decree dated 07.10.2015 sought relief against the order of rejection of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and alongwith the appeal wanted adjudication by the appellate court regarding amendment sought by the plaintiff respondent. The respondent thereafter again moved fresh application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC before the learned appellate court and prayed to seek such amendment earlier which has been allowed by the learned appellate court vide order dated 06.10.2016. 3. Shri Sajjan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not maintainable and if at all the issue of amendment sought by the respondents was to be decided, then the same could have been decided in the appeal itself wherein specific averments were made by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the original order passed by learned trial court before the decree at the first instance of rejection of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has not been considered by the appellate court while allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents could have demanded decision on the issue of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC only at the time of final adjudication of the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Satya Narayan Vs. Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) No.1, Bikaner, reported in 2008(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1497; the relevant para whereof reads as under :- “4. The learned counsel for the petitioner defendant submits that the prayer for possession cannot be allowed to be added at such a belated stage where the suit was filed way back in 1985 and the same was at the final stage of arguments. The present application was filed by the plaintiff and has been allowed by the learned trial court albeit wrongly. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Karsondas Thakkar Vs. M/s. Kiran Construction Co. & Ors. The present application was filed by the plaintiff and has been allowed by the learned trial court albeit wrongly. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Karsondas Thakkar Vs. M/s. Kiran Construction Co. & Ors. - 2008 AIR SCW 3192 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterating the well settled principles held that if the character of the suit is likely to be substantially changed, the amendment cannot be allowed particularly at the belated stage. The proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. w.e.f. 1.7.2002 is also to the same effect and, therefore, the amendment at the final stage of the suit cannot be liberally allowed. The present amendment seeking to add the prayer for possession is likely to change the character of the suit because it is basically beyond the frame of the original suit and the prayer made therein.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that whole purpose of the suit would be incomplete without amendment being sought, as the petitioner is only seeking mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction and to fortify such submission he has relied upon the decision given in Revajeetu Builders & Developers (M/s.) Vs. M/s. Narayanswamy & Sons & Ors., reported in 2009 DNJ (SC) 1156, relevant para whereof reads as follows : “16. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the original plaint, the appellant rightly sought only for recovery of sale price relying on section 65 of the Contract Act. Section 65 of the Contract Act is as follows:- "When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it." 5. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the nature of the suit is not changing on account of the amendment being sought and even if prohibitory injunction is sought, then the respondents shall be entitled to a mandatory injunction. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the nature of the suit is not changing on account of the amendment being sought and even if prohibitory injunction is sought, then the respondents shall be entitled to a mandatory injunction. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has to be decided by the learned court below at the threshold of appeal because any amendment made at the fag end of appeal would prejudice the process as the court would have invested its valuable time by then and making any amendment at that stage would create reversal of the proceedings, which has to be re-decided. Counsel for the respondent further submit that the order of appellate court is well reasoned as the appellate court has categorically given a finding that seeking of possession by the petitioner in pursuance of permanent injunction is nothing but a mandatory order which can only be sought alongwith permanent injunction. Counsel for the respondent further relied upon the judgment of Sant Lal Vs. Avtar Singh reported in AIR 1985 SC 857 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that termination of licence after expiry of period and suit for mandatory injunction filed by the lessee, the suit was maintainable for possession. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by learned appellate court while adjudicating the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was justified as unless the issue of amendment was decided at this stage, further proceedings may unnecessarily lead to waste of time and energy of all participating in the process. At a conclusive stage if the amendment is allowed, then it would reverse the process at that stage. This Court further finds that the reasons recorded by appellate court regarding admissibility of petitioner seeking mandatory injunction in pursuance of prohibitory injunction are justified and supported by precedent law of Tanushri Basu cited by learned counsel for the respondent. This Court further finds that the basic issue of property is being adjudicated and even the determination of possession is a consequential relief and if it is not decided by the learned appellate court, then that would lead to multiplicity of litigation. 7. In light of aforesaid discussion, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. This Court further finds that the basic issue of property is being adjudicated and even the determination of possession is a consequential relief and if it is not decided by the learned appellate court, then that would lead to multiplicity of litigation. 7. In light of aforesaid discussion, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner shall have complete opportunity to file a written statement pertaining to the amendment made and he shall be permitted to agitate the issues pertaining to the amendment so allowed.