ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1 Amb, District Una, H.P. in case No. 298-I-2010, titled as Ram Rakha vs. Harbhajan Rai and another whereby the application of petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”) for amendment of plaint has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court and has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction seeking the following reliefs: (a) Land measuring 0-04-66 hectares bearing Khewat No.379, Khatauni No.590, Khasra No.1534, as entered in Nakal Jamabandi for the year 2008-09. (b) Land measuring 0-04-79 hectares bearing Khewat No.380 min, Khatauni No.591 min, Khasra No.1439 as entered in Nakal Jamabandi for year 2008-09. (c) Land measuring 0-01-95 hectares bearing Khewat No.381, Khatauni No.592, Khasra No. 1531 as entered in Nakal Jamabandi for the year 2008-09, situated in village Kalruhi, Teh. Amb, Distt. Una (H.P.) and in the alternative suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the suit land in its original position if the defendants succeeded in changing the nature and taking forcible possession during the pendency of the suit may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs in the best interest of justice.” 3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is co-owner with others in respect of the land described in Clauses (a) and (b) of relief, whereas, the plaintiff is co-owner with other co-sharers including defendant No.1 in land described in Clause (c) of the relief. As per the plaintiff, the settlement authorities had made changes in revenue entries, which had been sought to be corrected by the plaintiff by moving appropriate application, which was pending before the competent revenue authority. He alleged that despite pendency of the revenue proceedings, defendants were trying to interfere in the suit land by disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and were threatening to raise construction thereon. 4. The defendants are contesting the suit on the premise that the land described in Clause (a) of relief is a common passage leading to Abadi of the defendants as also of other inhabitants of the village. 4. The defendants are contesting the suit on the premise that the land described in Clause (a) of relief is a common passage leading to Abadi of the defendants as also of other inhabitants of the village. Except for the passage through Khasra No. 1534, there was no other passage to their Abadi, which was in user of defendants and other residents of the village unobstructively for the last more than 20 years. The defendants further specifically denied any intent to raise any construction on the suit land. 5. During the pendency of the suit and particularly when the case was fixed for evidence of defendants, plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff sought to add para 5(A) in the plaint as under: “5-A. That during the pendency of this suit the defendant No.1, who is very clever, head strong and politically influential person, connived with the mischievous persons, to create the evidence, firstly filed the false and frivolous complaint regarding the stoppage of construction of passage of Harijan Basti before the Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Kalruhi on 7.5.2013 against the plaintiff which is still pending before the Panchayat. Thereafter, defendant No.1 again filed the false complaint regarding the same passage before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amb on 14.06.2013 and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amb forwarded the complaint to the Prahan, Gram Panchayat, Kalruhi. The Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Kalruhi constitute the Committee and the members of the Committee visited at the spot on 19.06.2013 and found that there is no passage and at the spot Bagichi and cultivated crops over the suit land. Thereafter the defendant No.1 filed the false and frivolous suit for permanent injunction of Khasra No. 1534 which is the part of this present suit against the plaintiff and his brother, which is still pending before the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Divn. Court No.III, Amb. The certified copies of all documents are attached herewith.” 6. The defendants resisted and contested the application. 7. The learned trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 07.03.2019, hence this petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. The matter in issue in suit is with respect to the respective rights of the parties over the suit land. 7. The learned trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 07.03.2019, hence this petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. The matter in issue in suit is with respect to the respective rights of the parties over the suit land. The questions for determination are whether the plaintiff can exert his exclusive rights on the suit land and whether there existed the passage for user of defendants and other share-holders through Khasra No. 1534 of the suit land? 10. By way of amendment the plaintiff intended to plead certain acts of defendants whereby they had allegedly made complaint regarding stoppage of passage of Harijan Basti before the Gram Panchayat, Kalruhi and also before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amb. The factum of filing of a separate suit by defendant No.1 in respect of Khasra No. 1534 was also sought to be pleaded. 11. The question arises whether the facts sought to be included in the plaint are required to be part of pleadings? The answer is in negative for the reason that the conduct of defendants in filing complaints before the authorities or filing of a suit in respect of Khasra No.1534 may be relevant as piece of evidence, but they cannot be said to be facts which required necessarily to be pleaded by the plaintiff. Even without pleading such facts, the plaintiff cannot be said to be barred from cross-examining the defendants or his witnesses on the facts sought to be pleaded in plaint. 12. Even otherwise it cannot be said that the amendment as sought by the plaintiff is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 13. In result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. The impugned order dated 07.03.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb is upheld. Petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.