JUDGMENT : (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners seek the following relief :- i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of Certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed by First Additional District Judge, Haridwar in First Appeal no. 69/2022 "Israr and another Vs. Akhlakh and others" whereby the Learned First Additional District Judge, Haridwar allowed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the respondent no. 1 & 2 (Contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the admission. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners/defendant nos.1 and 2 would submit that respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of two sale deeds dated 10.01.2014 and 28.01.2015 executed by respondent no.3/defendant no.3 in favour of the petitioners/defendant nos.1 and 2; that, the suit of the respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs was dismissed against which respondent nos.1 & 2/plaintiffs preferred Appeal No.69 of 2022; that, in this appeal respondent nos.1 & 2/plaintiffs moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. (Annexure No.5) whereby the relief was sought to amend the plaint by adding paragraph 5j after 5; as under:- ^^1- ;g fd okn i= ds i`"B la[;k 5 ij ^^iSjk uEcj 5;^^ ds mijkUr iSjk la[;k ^^5j^^ fuEu cढk;k tkos& ^^5j& ;g fd fuUuk iq= lkny n~okjk iathd`r cSukek fnukad 27-01-2015 ¼lrkbZl tuojh nks gtkj iUnzg½ ftldh jftLVªh cgh uEcj 1 ¼,d½ ftYn 2062 ¼nks thjks N% nks½ ds i`"B 221 ¼nks nks ,d½ ls 238 ¼nks rhu vkB½ ij dzekad 787 ¼lkr vkB lkr½ ij lc jftLVªkj dk;kZy; gfjn~okj ij gqbZ gS ds ek/;e ls 735 ¼lkr rhu ikap½ oxZ QqV jdck [kljk uEcj 1512 ¼,d ikap ,d nks½ ds oknh laŒ 2¼nks½ ,oa xSj Qjhd izost dks vUrfjr dj fn;k blfy;s dfFkr fod; i= cgd izfroknh laŒ 1¼,d½ o 2 ¼nks½ fcuk vf/kdkj ds gksus ds dkj.k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS^^ cढk;k tk;sA 2- ;g fd okn i= ds ckn mUoku esa izfroknh laŒ 3 ds ckn ^^izfroknh laŒ 4¼pkj½ & ijost iq= 'kjkQr vyh fuoklh xzke ljk;] ijxuk Tokykiqj] rglhy o ftyk fgjn~okj cढk;k tk;sA Besides this, the respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs also prayed to implead Parvej S/o Sharafat Ali as defendant no.4 in the array of parties. 4. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that objections (Annexure No.6) were filed by the petitioners/defendant nos.1 and 2 against the amendment application stating that the application is against the law; that, the sale deed regarding which amendment is sought is not related to the sale deed of the property in dispute; that, the application for amendment is made to delay the appeal; that, respondent nos.1 & 2/plaintiffs wants to retract the admission, which they have made in the plaint; that, the sale deed in question is without any relevance because the person ^^fuUuk^^ was the owner of the property 1900 sq.ft. out of which he sold 1102 sq.ft. on 03.09.2011, 1102 sq.ft. on 02.07.2013, 300 sq.ft. on 10.01.2014 and reaming 500 sq.ft. on 28.01.2015. He would further submit that the person Parvez, who is prayed to be impleaded as defendant no.4, was witness in some other proceedings for respondent nos.1 & 2/plaintiffs. 5. Per contra, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2/plaintiffs would strongly contest the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners/defendant nos.1 and 2 and would submit that the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the First Appellate Court is a well reasoned order and does not call for any interference. He would further submit that the amendment sought by the respondent nos.1 & 2/plaintiffs are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and the same are not likely to cause any injustice or prejudice to the petitioners/defendant nos.1 and 2; that, it would also avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and by way of the amendments sought no new case is being built up by respondent nos.1 & 2/plaintiffs. He would further submit that by way of amendment the respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are not retracting from any admission made in the plaint. 6. Heard submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on file. 7. Perusal of the reply/objections to the application moved under Order VI Rule 17 (Annexure No.6) would reveal that in the reply there is no allegation that respondent nos.1 & 2/plaintiffs are building up some new case contradictory to the case made in the plaint by them or they are retracting from any admission. 7. Perusal of the reply/objections to the application moved under Order VI Rule 17 (Annexure No.6) would reveal that in the reply there is no allegation that respondent nos.1 & 2/plaintiffs are building up some new case contradictory to the case made in the plaint by them or they are retracting from any admission. There is also no allegation that respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs were not diligent at the time of filing the suit and despite the pretty good knowledge of all the facts sought to be incorporated by way of amendment they chose not to plead the same in the plaint initially. 8. It is trite that the merit of the case should not be looked into at the time of considering the application for amendment. The only issue which is to be seen by the Court is whether by way of the amendment sought, the applicant is trying to build some new case or retracting from the admission made by him/her previously or seeking any relief which is barred by the law of limitation. It is also trite that, if the amendment sought is for the purpose to avoid the multiplicity of litigation then the stage at which the amendment is sought is not of any consequence. The rock stone of the law is substantial justice. 9. Perusal of the impugned order would reflect that the First Appellate Court has dealt with all the aspects while deciding the application for amendment on the point of facts and law. 10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. Same is hereby dismissed in limine.