ORDER : The petitioner/plaintiff in OS No.110/2007 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 31.10.2017 on IA No.18 by which the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents 1 and 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit was initially filed for bare injunction restraining the defendants from forming the road by encroaching the suit property. Subsequently in July 2014, during the pendency of the suit, road was formed. At that time, on 9.7.2014, the plaintiff filed an application (IA No.15) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC wherein the status quo order was passed. Subsequently, as the defendants violated the order of status quo, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, which is pending. Meanwhile, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application IA No.18 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to bring on the developments that had taken place subsequent to filing of the suit and additional prayer seeking mandatory injunction to remove the road formed in the suit land. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the plaintiff had stated that as the defendants 1 and 2 formed the road during the pendency of the suit, it had become necessary for the plaintiff to bring on the developments which had taken place subsequent to filing of the suit and also seeking mandatory injunction which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objections contending that the application (IA No.18) filed belatedly that too when the matter stood at the stage of arguments. It is further stated that the plaintiff/petitioner was aware of the fact of forming the road in the year 2014 itself. 4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 and 2 justifies the rejection of the application by the trial Court. She also submits that the petitioner/plaintiff had slept over the matter and filed the present application for amendment at fag-end of the suit which is not maintainable. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. 4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 and 2 justifies the rejection of the application by the trial Court. She also submits that the petitioner/plaintiff had slept over the matter and filed the present application for amendment at fag-end of the suit which is not maintainable. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that would arise for my consideration is, whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application IA No.18 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC? My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons: 6. The aforestated suit was filed initially for bare injunction to restrain the defendants permanently from forming the road by encroaching the suit land. Subsequently, the defendants filed their written statement which is produced as Annexure-B to this writ petition. On perusal of the written statement, it is not clear as to whether they had formed the road in the suit schedule property or not. They have stated that the development of road was commenced and completed for more than 3 kms. Whether 3kms would include the plaintiff’s property or not, is also not clear. According to the plaintiff, the road was formed in July 2014 in the suit schedule property. Immediately thereafter, he filed an application IA No.15 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 from forming the road. On the said application, status quo order was passed on 27.4.2014. Thereafter, for disobedience of the said order, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC seeking to initiate contempt action against the defendants, which application is also pending for consideration. 7. The plaintiff/petitioner filed an application IA No.18 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to include the averments with regard to subsequent developments after filing of the suit and for additional prayer for mandatory injunction. In the affidavit, the plaintiff stated that he intends to include the averments with regard to subsequent developments which had been taken place during the pendency of the suit to the effect that the defendants have formed the road in the suit land by encroaching the land of the plaintiff. In the affidavit, the plaintiff stated that he intends to include the averments with regard to subsequent developments which had been taken place during the pendency of the suit to the effect that the defendants have formed the road in the suit land by encroaching the land of the plaintiff. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that as the plaintiff was pursuing the applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and under Order XXXIX Rule 2a of CPC before the trial Court, it took some time for him to file IA No.18 for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 8. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC provides for amendment of pleadings. If the amendment is sought by any party subsequent to commencement of the trial, a party who seeks amendment shall satisfy the Court as to why he/she could not seek amendment earlier. In the instant case, the amendment sought is to include the subsequent developments in the suit with regard to formation of the road in the suit schedule properties and for mandatory injunction. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that the amendment with regard to subsequent developments if necessary for proper adjudication, shall be allowed. In the instant case, when it is alleged that the road is formed in the plaintiff’s land, the plaintiff/petitioner has rightly sought for amendment of the plaint to include subsequent developments and prayer for mandatory injunction. The trial Court ought not to have rejected the application (IA No.18) since the amendment is with regard to subsequent developments. The trial Court observed that after lapse of three years from the date of knowledge of forming the road, the application is filed. The application could not be rejected only on the ground of delay without examining the circumstances under which the application is filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the application (IA No.18) for amendment requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.10.2017 passed on IA No.18 is set-aside. IA No.18 is allowed. The petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as sought in IA No.18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the application (IA No.18) for amendment requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.10.2017 passed on IA No.18 is set-aside. IA No.18 is allowed. The petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as sought in IA No.18. It is needless to observe that the defendants would be entitled to file additional written statement if necessary and also to seek for framing of additional issue with regard to limitation which includes question of fact and law. 10. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.