ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 26.4.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 113/2016, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’). During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint. The Trial Court vide its order dated 26.4.2019 dismissed the plaintiff’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that on 21.5.2017, the defendant with the aid of anti-social elements and police force encroached upon the suit property and constructed the boundary wall around there. In this view of the matter, amendment, as sought, with regard to evicting the defendant from the suit property was necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter. 4. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Mohinder Kumar Mehra Versus Roop Rani Mehra & Ors. reported in 2017 DNJ (SC) 1110 (ii) Gyanaram Versus Ramratan & Ors. (S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 13348/2019; decided on 16.9.2019 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the suit property is a Government property. He further submits that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. The construction was raised by the defendant and in the suit property, the defendant’s articles are stored. 6. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) South Konkan Distilleries and Another Versus Prabhakar Gajanan Naik and others reported in (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 632. (ii) Smt. Kala Devi Versus Praven Surana reported in 2017 (2) Civil Court Cases 802 (Rajasthan) (iii) Meera Ben Versus Amritlal reported in [2015] 3 WLN 187 7. Heard. Considered. 8. The Trial Court vide its order dated 26.4.2019 dismissed the plaintiff’s application observing that after framing the issues, the application seeking amendment was filed belatedly and no reason was shown for the delay. 9. Heard. Considered. 8. The Trial Court vide its order dated 26.4.2019 dismissed the plaintiff’s application observing that after framing the issues, the application seeking amendment was filed belatedly and no reason was shown for the delay. 9. From a perusal of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff, it is clear that in the relief clause, the plaintiff sought for mandatory injunction. 10. As per Article 113 of Limitation Act, the period of limitation for filing a suit for mandatory injunction is three years. In this view of the matter, when the plaintiff alleged that on 21.5.2017, the defendant encroached upon the suit property, the application filed on 11.5.2018 seeking mandatory injunction was well within limitation. 11. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Konkan Distilleries and Another Versus Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & ors (supra), it does not apply in the instant case for the reason that the said case related to dissolution of partnership, wherein the amendment was sought to be made in the written statement and the counter claim, whereas in the present case, the suit was filed for permanent injunction and the amendment was sought to be made in the plaint. 12. So far as the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of Court in the case of Smt. Kala Devi Versus Praven Surana (supra) and Meera Ben Versus Amritlal (supra) are concerned, the said judgements also do not apply for the reason that in the said judgments by way of amendment application, possession was not sought, but in the instant case, by way of amendment application, possession has been claimed. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Revanna vs Anjanamma (Dead) by Lrs and others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 940 , has held that: “Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money." 14. While adverting to the facts of this case, it is noticed that in the instant case, only the issues have been framed and the trial has not commenced so far. While adverting to the facts of this case, it is noticed that in the instant case, only the issues have been framed and the trial has not commenced so far. In this view of the matter, if from the amendment sought to be made, any prejudice was going to be caused to the defendant, he could be compensated in terms of money. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Versus Ayyakannu reported in (2002) 7 SCC 559 , in the matter of amendments in civil cases, held that an amendment based on subsequent event is permissible and such an amendment may be necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors. Vs. Nandram (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors., reported in (2015) 13 SCC 132 has again reiterated the basic principles, which are to be kept in mind while considering such applications in Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22, which is quoted as below:- “20. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost. 21. In our view, since the appellant sought amendment in Para 3 of the original plaint, the High Court ought not to have rejected the application. 22. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, this Court held that the power to grant amendment to pleadings is intended to serve the needs of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.” 17. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court is found to have committed material illegality while passing the impugned order dated 26.4.2.019 and amendment sought for being with in limitation, could have been allowed. 18. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court is found to have committed material illegality while passing the impugned order dated 26.4.2.019 and amendment sought for being with in limitation, could have been allowed. 18. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is allowed; the order dated 26.4.2019 passed by the Trial Court is set-aside and the amendment, as sought by the plaintiff in his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stands allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the defendant within one month from the date of this order. Let the amended plaint be filed within a month from the date of this order. 19. Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.