ORDER : 1. Since both the petitions arise from similar orders, whereby application for amending the plaint has been rejected and whereas the dispute raised in the Civil Suit being similar in nature and whereas even the amendment sought for is identical, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate, more particularly, with the consent of parties, to take both these applications for hearing together. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Darshan M. Parikh on behalf of the respondent. 3. By way of these applications, the applicants-original plaintiffs challenge an order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli dated 21.08.2017 below Exhibit-40 & 37 in Special Civil Suit No.75 of 2013 and Special Civil Suit No.74 of 2013 respectively. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-original plaintiff had preferred Special Civil Suit No.75 of 2013 and Special Civil Suit No.74 of 2013 inter-alia challenging a registered sale deed entered into between the original plaintiff and the defendant i.e. the parties before the Court. Learned advocate would submit that in the Civil Suit, the original plaintiff had specifically mentioned that possession of the suit property was with the original plaintiff and whereas it was in such regard prayed that the defendant may not in any manner obstruct the original plaintiff from enjoying possession of the suit property. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani would further submit that the defendant in their reply to the suit had contested the submission that the possession of the property was with the original plaintiff. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani would submit that during pendency of the Civil Suit an application Exhibit-40 had been preferred by the original plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter-alia requesting the learned Civil Court to permit amendment of pleadings. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani would submit that during pendency of the Civil Suit an application Exhibit-40 had been preferred by the original plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter-alia requesting the learned Civil Court to permit amendment of pleadings. Learned advocate would draw the attention of this Court to the averments in the said application and would submit that while originally it was the case of the plaintiff that the possession of the suit property was with the plaintiff, since interim injunction had neither been granted by the learned Civil Court nor by this Court in Appeal from Order, and since the possession of the plaintiff had not been believed by both the Courts, therefore, the application for amendment was preferred inter-alia for amending the plaint to incorporate a prayer for directing the defendant to restore or return the possession of the land in question in favour of the original plaintiff applicant herein. It appears that in the application, it was also mentioned by the plaintiff that the defendants had taken over forcible possession of the suit property during pendency of the suit proceedings. The learned Civil Court vide the impugned order, had rejected such application, more particularly, by holding that the plaintiff could not establish that the issues which were sought to be incorporated by way of the application for amendment was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff, even after due diligence and whereas the learned Civil Court has also observed that the plaintiff was trying to improve his case and whereas if amendment were to be allowed then the entire nature of the suit would be changed. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani on behalf of the petitioner would assail such observations by submitting that the amendment, if allowed, would not have caused any prejudice to the defendant. Learned advocate would submit that upon the learned Civil Court as well as this Court not believing the version of the original plaintiff of possession of the suit property being with the original plaintiff, and not granting any interim relief in favour of the original plaintiff, the original plaintiff was entitled to move the application for amendment, more particularly, to have the possession of the suit property restored back in his favour. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani would further submit that the findings arrived at by the learned Civil Court, are in the nature of final findings, without any evidence adduced for either proving or disproving such facts. 5. Having regard to such submissions the learned advocate Mr. Jasani would request this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Court and whereas it is further requested that the amendment has prayed for may be granted by this Court. 6. This application is vehemently objected to by learned advocate Mr. Darshan Parikh appearing on behalf of the respondent-original defendant. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh would submit that as such the suit itself could not be maintainable, more particularly, since the original plaintiff having accepted valuable consideration, had after conveying the property to the defendant by way of a registered sale deed and admitting the fact of having received sale consideration is now attempting to turn around and question the registered sale deed which was signed by him as the vendor of the property. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh would further submit that in so far as application for amendment is concerned, if the amendment as prayed for were to be allowed, then the entire nature of the suit would get changed. Learned advocate would submit that originally the plaintiff had taken a stand that the possession of the suit property was with the plaintiff and whereas after such stand had not been believed either by the learned Civil Court or by this Court, the plaintiff is now attempting to improve his pleadings, more particularly, learned advocate reiterating that by such attempt to improve his pleadings, the entire complexion of the suit getting changed, more particularly, now the plaintiff coming out with an improved case that the possession was not with the plaintiff and whereas the possession of the plaintiff has to be restored. 7. According to learned advocate Mr. Parikh inspite-of the fact that the registered sale deed specifically states that the possession is handed over to the purchaser of the property i.e. the defendant yet at the relevant point of time the original plaintiff had chosen to come up with a false case that the possession was with him. Having chosen to come to the Court with a false case, upon the same being exposed, according to learned advocate Mr. Having chosen to come to the Court with a false case, upon the same being exposed, according to learned advocate Mr. Parikh, the plaintiff is not entitled to tern back and tried and to improve his original version. Learned advocate would submit that the consideration that weighed with the learned Civil Court being absolutely justified and have been in accordance with law, no interference called for and whereas this Court may not entertain this application. 8. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties who have not submitted anything else. 9. At the outset, it would be require to be noted that an application for amendment of the suit, is governed by the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby it has been inter-alia stated that the Court may allow either party to amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms that may be just and proper, more particularly, for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 10. In so far as the merits of the application are concerned, it would be clear that the original plaintiff in his pleading had taken a stand that the possession of the property was with the plaintiff and whereas it was even prayed by the plaintiff that the defendant may be restrained from obstructing the plaintiff in enjoying the possession of the property. It appears that since the possession of the plaintiff had not been believed by the learned Civil Court at this stage of considering the application for interim injunction below Exhibit-5 and such possession not been believed by this Court in an Appeal from Order, challenging the order of the learned Civil Court whereby Exhibit-5 for interim injunction had been rejected, the original plaintiff is now trying to come up with a completely contrary version, where he states that the possession of the suit property is with the defendant and the same may be restored in his favour. In the considered opinion of this Court, such amendment of the pleading, would have the effect of changing the entire complexion of the suit. The suit having been preferred inter-alia challenging a registered sale deed and whereas the suit proceeds on the basis that possession of the suit property is with the original plaintiff. In the considered opinion of this Court, such amendment of the pleading, would have the effect of changing the entire complexion of the suit. The suit having been preferred inter-alia challenging a registered sale deed and whereas the suit proceeds on the basis that possession of the suit property is with the original plaintiff. The plaintiff after having lost at the stage of interim injunction before the learned Civil Court and before this Court, the plaintiff, ought not to be permitted to move an application, for amendment of pleading whereby the plaintiff now comes out with a completely converse case then what had been pleaded by him and whereas the plaintiff now states that possession would be with the respondent and should be restored back in his favour. 10.1. Furthermore, a perusal of the application would also reveal that the plaintiff in the application has set out self contradictory facts. On one hand the plaintiff would submit that the learned Courts that is learned Civil Court and the High Court not having believed the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, the amendment was sought for and on the other hand, in the same breath, it is being pleaded by the plaintiff that during pendency of the suit, the defendant had forcibly dispossessed the original plaintiff. It does not appear that such a case had been made out by the plaintiff anywhere else except for having casually made such averment in application for amendment. As noted hereinabove, both the versions, cannot go together either the plaintiff could have averred that the possession as believed by the Courts, was not with him or the plaintiff could have averred that the defendants had taken over forcible possession of the land during pendency of the suit proceedings. The contradictory pleadings in the application for amendment, would also persuade this Court, not to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court below. 11. At this stage, this Court seeks to rely upon decision of the hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision was interalia examining the scope of exercise of power under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision was interalia examining the scope of exercise of power under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The relevant conclusions of the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to Order 6 Rule 17, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the paragraph No.70 of the said decision, being relevant for the present purpose is quoted hereinbelow for benefit:- “70(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pinpointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought o introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought o introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897).” 11.1 Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to considering an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, and considering the same from the factual stand point, a clear conclusion would be derived that an application, praying for amendment should be rejected on the following grounds, namely:- (i) The amendment would cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. (ii) The amendment changes the nature of the suit. (iii) The prayer for amendment is malafide. (ii) The amendment changes the nature of the suit. (iii) The prayer for amendment is malafide. (iv) The amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action so as to set up entirely a new case foreign to the case set up in the plaint. 11.2 The reasons for arriving at the above legal conclusions are set out by the Court herein below:- The amendment would cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. It would be pertinent to note here that in the plaint, the principal prayer of the plaintiff-applicant herein was with regard to setting aside of the registered sale deed between the plaintiff and the defendant-respondent and whereas it would the specific case of the plaintiff that though the land in question have been sold to the respondent by way of the impugned sale deed, yet, the possession of the property had not been given to the respondent. By way of the amendment, the plaintiff now seeks to come out with a case that the possession having not been believed by the learned Courts i.e. the learned Civil Court and this Court, at the stage of interim injunction, therefore, the plaintiff has requested to incorporate a prayer for restoring the possession. As against the same it appears that the contention of the petitioner-plaintiff as regards the possession, was vehemently opposed by the respondent, more particularly in the backdrop of the case put up by the respondent that the sale deed was entered into after the sale price had been paid and as a consequence of the sale deed, the possession had also been handed over to the respondent. It appears that the respondent herein has placed on record affidavit-in-reply filed in the Civil Application in Appeal from Order preferred by the plaintiff challenging non grant of interim injunction. It would appear that the respondent had vehemently objected to the assertion with regard to possession and whereas it appears that the respondent had tried to submit that the possession had been passed over to the respondent after the sale deeds and whereas the respondent had developed the said suit property. It would appear that the respondent had vehemently objected to the assertion with regard to possession and whereas it appears that the respondent had tried to submit that the possession had been passed over to the respondent after the sale deeds and whereas the respondent had developed the said suit property. Thus considering the stand taken by the respondent before the learned Trial Court and this Court as regards the legality of the sale deeds and possession being handed over to the respondent after the sale deed, it would cause great injustice and prejudice to the respondent if the plaintiff-petitioner is now permitted to amend the suit by coming out with a case contrary to his original case. 12. As noted hereinabove, the amendment sought for, changes the nature of the suit since the plaintiff had preferred the suit interalia praying for setting aside of the sale deed with a clear case that possession of the property was with the plaintiff and whereas now the plaintiff wants the possession of the property to be restored back, which in the considered opinion of this Court changes the nature of the suit. 13. The prayer for amendment is also malafide, since the plaintiff had come with a contrary case that is in one hand the plaintiff contends that since the learned Courts i.e. learned Civil Court and this Court at the stage of interim injunction had not believed the case of the plaintiff as regards possession, therefore, the prayer for restoration of possession is sought to be incorporated and on the other hand, the plaintiff interalia submits that during pendency of the suit proceedings the possession of the plaintiff had been forcibly taken away. As noted hereinabove, both the aspects cannot go together and whereas since the latter stand has been taken by the original plaintiff, which stand cannot be corelatable to the former stand and since the latter stand appears to have been taken without any supporting material. It would clearly appear that the application is preferred malafidely. 14. As noted hereinabove, both the aspects cannot go together and whereas since the latter stand has been taken by the original plaintiff, which stand cannot be corelatable to the former stand and since the latter stand appears to have been taken without any supporting material. It would clearly appear that the application is preferred malafidely. 14. In so far as the amendment changing the nature of the suit or the cause of action as to set up entirely new case foreign to the case set up in the plaint, as noted hereinabove, since the original case of the plaintiff was that the possession was with the plaintiff and upon the learned Courts i.e. the learned Civil Court and this Court not interfering the application for interim injunction, now plaintiffs are attempting to set up a new case i.e. with regard to the possession not being with the such plaintiff, therefore, the possession is to be restored back. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an amendment, would change the nature of the suit and also the cause of action as also set up of entirely a new case, and therefore, such amendment must be disallowed. 15. Furthermore, a perusal of the order would reveal that the learned Civil Court had come to a conclusion that while the Court was empowered to grant an application for amendment but the plaintiff was required to make out a case that the aspect on which the amendment is sought for, was not within the knowledge of the original plaintiff when the suit had been preferred. Learned Civil Court, in so far as the said aspect is concerned, has rightly held that the plaintiff could not have missed out such crucial aspect, as to who was having possession of the land in question at the time of filing of the suit and whereas as noted by this Court hereinabove, at the time of filing of the suit the original case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. Thus, as noted by the learned Civil Court, the plaintiff, though, well aware about the fact that he was not in a possession of the suit property, had at the relevant point of time while filing the suit, had taken a false stand and whereas the plaintiff later on, had after the orders passed by the learned Civil Court and this Court, had attempted to turn around and come out with an improved version. Again as noted by the learned Civil Court, it could prim-facie be held that the original plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court, no error whatsoever has been committed by the learned Civil Court in passing the impugned order. 16. At this stage, this Court seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181 , paragraph No.15 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced herein below for benefit:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 17. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above quoted paragraph, has laid down the law with regard to exercise of powers by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court, has interalia laid down the law that the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not to act as a Court of First Appeal to re-appreciate and reweigh the evidence upon which the final order is passed. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that the supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of facts or law and whereas the consideration that should weigh with this Court would be that if the final finding of the Court is either justified or supported then this Court should not interfere with such finding. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is not to substitute its decision on the facts and conclusion from the decision arrived at by the learned Court below. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, the jurisdiction which is to be exercised under Article 227 is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set aside grave dereliction of duty or fragrant abuse or violation of fundamental principles of law or justice and whereas the power under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly, where the order suffers from the vice of no evidence or from the vice of perverse findings. Most importantly the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law that interference should only be appropriate cases where non interference would lead to miscarriage of justice. 18. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the considered opinion of this Court, the final finding given by the learned Civil Court being fully justified and whereas when the reasoning of the Court not suffering from any error, this Court would not interfere with such order passed by the learned Civil Court. Furthermore, this Court as also of the opinion that the order in question neither suffers from the vice of no evidence nor the order suffers from vice of perversity. Furthermore, this Court as also of the opinion that the order in question neither suffers from the vice of no evidence nor the order suffers from vice of perversity. Furthermore it does not appear that the final conclusion could not be arrived at by a reasonable man and whereas in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not reflect any violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. Most importantly in the considered opinion of this Court non interference with the impugned order would not cause any miscarriage of justice. 19. Having regard to such observation, discussion and finding in the considered opinion of this Court the present applications being merit-less, no interference is called for. Hence, the present application is rejected. Needless to clarify that the observations made by this Court are for the purpose of deciding the present application and whereas the learned Civil Court shall not be influenced by such observations at the time of final decision of the suit. 20. In view of the order passed in main matters, Civil Applications do not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.