JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 12.02.2014 passed in Money Suit No.20 of 2006. 2. Money Suit No.20 of 2006 was instituted for a money decree for Rs. 5,40,000/- against the defendants, jointly or severally, and for a decree for interest @ 18% per annum from 08/10.07.2003, pendente-lite and future. After the defendants appeared and filed their written statement of defence, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for the following amendment in the plaint was filed on 31.07.2009: "17A- That the plaintiff has all along been ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract." 3. This application has been dismissed on the ground that rights of the defendants cannot be defeated through amendment in the plaint. 4. Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that at any stage of the proceeding amendment in the pleadings can be permitted. The reason why amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the suit is incorporated in Rule 17 itself. It provides that an amendment which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties shall be permitted. It has been held that Order VI Rule 17 CPC consists of two parts; the first part is discretionary whereas the second part is imperative. The fundamental test when amendment in the pleadings shall be permitted is whether the proposed amendment is necessary for adjudicating real dispute between the parties. The expression "real question in controversy between the parties" in Rule 17 CPC must be examined in the context of initial pleadings of the parties. It is not that in all cases where other party can be suitably compensated or before trial in the suit has commenced parties can be permitted to amend their pleadings, it is only such amendment which shall have a co-relation to the initial pleadings of the parties and which is necessary for adjudicating the real question in controversy that can be permitted; of course subsequent developments, if necessary, also can be incorporated through amendment in the pleadings. 5. In Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan , (2001) 2 SCC 472 it has been observed that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 6. The plaintiff who initially claimed a money decree for Rs. 5. In Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan , (2001) 2 SCC 472 it has been observed that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 6. The plaintiff who initially claimed a money decree for Rs. 5,40,000/- through amendment now seeks a decree for specific performance of an oral agreement and a direction upon defendant no.2 to register a sale-deed transferring the suit schedule property. Not only the cause of action for instituting the suit would change if the proposed amendments are allowed, nature of the suit itself would change; a money suit now would be converted into a specific performance suit. Obviously, the proposed amendments, if allowed, would take the defendants by surprise and cause serious prejudice to them [refer Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others , (2009) 10 SCC 84 and Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited Vs. Manohar Lal , (2017) 5 SCC 212 ]. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.02.2014 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.