ORDER : 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of the view that the impugned order dated 05.04.2018, as passed by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru on I.A. No 6 in O.S. No. 4014 of 2015, rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner to amend the plaint, cannot be sustained from any stand-point and is required to be set aside. Put it in a nutshell, the relevant aspects of the matter are that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants from interfering with or demolishing the wall in question on the southern side of the schedule ’Á’ property. The plaintiff/petitioner also made a prayer for temporary injunction against the defendants, but such a prayer was declined by the trial Court by its order on I.A. No. 1, as passed on 09.03.2016. 2. Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner made an application seeking leave to amend the plaint so as to take further pleadings that after the rejection of the I.A. No. 1, the defendants demolished the wall in question on 16.03.2016; and also to insert the prayers for declaration as regards the wall in question and for mandatory injunction for reconstruction of the same. 3. By the order impugned, the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, has proceeded to reject the Application (I.A. No. 6) so moved by the plaintiff/petitioner, on a rather strange consideration that when the plaintiff has not challenged the aforesaid order dated 09.03.2016 rejecting the application for temporary injunction, he cannot seek the proposed amendment! 4. It is difficult to appreciate as to how the right of a party to litigation to seek amendment of the pleadings could at all be adversely affected by the reason of passing of an order on the prayer for temporary injunction or for not filing an appeal against the order granting or declining temporary injunction. The order passed by the Trial Court could only to be disapproved, for being based on entirely irrelevant considerations. 5. The application seeking leave to amend the pleadings as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in the present case with reference to the subsequent events cannot be said to be suffering from any shortcomings so as to be declined. The order passed by the Trial Court could only to be disapproved, for being based on entirely irrelevant considerations. 5. The application seeking leave to amend the pleadings as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in the present case with reference to the subsequent events cannot be said to be suffering from any shortcomings so as to be declined. On the contrary, such an amendment appears to be necessary for the just and effectual determination of the real question between the parties. 6. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it appears just and proper to allow the application made by the plaintiff/petitioner in this order itself, so as to ensure the progression of the suit without further delay. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 05.04.2018 is set aside; and I.A. No. 6 moved in O.S. No 4014 of 2015 is allowed. The plaintiff/petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint as prayed for. The amended plaint shall be filed by the plaintiff/petitioner within fifteen days from today and the trial Court shall proceed thereafter with the matter in accordance with law. No costs.