ORDER : 1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner seeking to question the validity of the order dated 23.09.2022 (Annex.P/6) passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Pilibanga (Hanumangarh) whereby the applications filed by the respondents/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the suit and applications for temporary injunction have been allowed. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit on 18.03.2015 for perpetual injunction alongwith an application for temporary injunction against the petitioner/defendant before the trial court. Written statement to the suit and reply to applications for temporary injunction were filed on 04.03.2016 denying the averments made by the respondents/plaintiffs and claiming that they are in possession of the suit property. Prior to that the respondents/plaintiffs filed applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the suit on 03.04.2015, inter-alia, with the submissions that after filing of the suit on 18.03.2015, on 27.03.2015 the petitioner/defendant has forcibly taken possession of the suit property and has constructed a boundary wall by demolishing the existing temporary boundary wall. Based on which, the amendment was sought in the plaint and the application seeking temporary injunction by adding paragraph “6A’” in the plaint and clause “B” in the relief clause. Further relief was sought for possession and removal of construction made by the petitioner/defendant alongwith a prayer for mandatory injunction. 3. The petitioner/defendant filed response to the applications, inter-alia, with the submissions that even on the date when the suit was filed, the petitioner was in possession and that the suit was filed based on incorrect facts by concealing material facts and that the amendment sought, if allowed, the same would change the nature of the suit from mandatory injunction instead of perpetual injunction. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial court allowed the applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC while observing that all the issues pertaining to the subject-matter must be decided in the same suit, which is main purpose for incorporating the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 in CPC and that by permitting the amendment sought, the nature of the suit would not be changed; and consequently allowed the applications. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that the trial court was not justified in accepting the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, inasmuch as the nature of the suit, which was filed for injunction would now be changed in a suit for possession, which nature of amendment is not permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Submissions were made that immediately on filing of the suit and application for temporary injunction, application seeking appointment of Commissioner was filed with the contentions that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property, however, the application remained pending and in the meanwhile on 03.04.2015, application seeking amendment was filed with the contentions that the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the property and, therefore, they may be permitted to amend the suit, which has totally changed the nature of the suit, which is not permissible and, therefore, the applications which were filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, should have been rejected by the trial court. Further submissions have been made that by permitting the amendment sought, the matter no more remains that of the jurisdiction of the trial court and such an amendment, which takes away the suit out of the jurisdiction of the trial court, could not have been permitted and on that count also, the application was liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. vs. Alok Kumar Lodha & Ors. : Civil Appeal Nos.3703- 3750 of 2022 decided on 12.07.2022 by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. The facts, which emerged from the record are that the suit for perpetual injunction was filed by the plaintiffs with the contentions that they were in possession of the suit property and were sought to be dispossessed by the petitioner on 18.03.2015. Alongwith suit application seeking temporary injunction was filed. On 03.04.2015, the present applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC came to be filed alleging dispossession from the suit property on 27.03.2015 and seeking to amend the relief, as claimed in the suit, i.e. of possession. 8. Alongwith suit application seeking temporary injunction was filed. On 03.04.2015, the present applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC came to be filed alleging dispossession from the suit property on 27.03.2015 and seeking to amend the relief, as claimed in the suit, i.e. of possession. 8. Whether in a case of present nature, wherein the allegations in the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC pertain to dispossession during pendency of the suit and seeking consequential amendment amounts to change in the nature of the suit, is no more res-integra. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar vs. Aayakannu and Another : (2002) 7 SCC 559 has laid down as under: “5. The short question arising for decision is whether it is permissible to convert through amendment a suit merely for permanent prohibitory injunction into a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 6. It is true that the plaintiff on the averments made in the application for amendment proposes to introduce a cause of action which has arisen to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. According to the defendant the averments made in the application for amendment are factually incorrect and the defendant was not in possession of the property since before the institution of the suit itself. 7. In our opinion, the basic structure of the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. In the opinion of the Trial Court it was one to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit and that is one of the reasons which has prevailed with the Trial Court and with the High Court in refusing the prayer for amendment and also in dismissing the plaintiffs revision. We fail to understand, if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings. 8. We fail to understand, if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings. 8. In Rukmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and Ors., AIR (1960) 335, this Court has taken the view that where a suit was filed without seeking an appropriate relief, it is a well settled rule of practice not to dismiss the suit automatically but to allow the plaintiff to make necessary amendment if he seeks to do so.” 9. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has categorically laid down that allowing the amendment curtails the multiplicity of the legal proceedings and that the amendment of such nature should be permitted. 10. In that view of the matter, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding change in the nature of the suit, stands fully answered. So far as the judgment in the case of Asian Hotels (supra) is concerned, the facts alleged therein on the subject-matter of the amendment sought therein, Hon’ble the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the same would change the nature of the suit and consequently allowed the appeal, however, as observed hereinbefore, the nature of the amendment sought in the present case, as laid down in the case of Sampath Kumar (supra), does not change the nature of the suit and as such the ratio laid down in the case of Asian Hotels (supra) would have no application to the present case. 11. The plea raised that as the amendment allowed would take away the jurisdiction of the trial court and, therefore, the amendment could not have been allowed, has been noted only for rejection. 11. The plea raised that as the amendment allowed would take away the jurisdiction of the trial court and, therefore, the amendment could not have been allowed, has been noted only for rejection. Only because on account of amendment sought, which is necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit purportedly would take away the jurisdiction of the trial court, cannot be a reason not to entertain the said application, as the application based on the subsequent event and/or for any other reason would have to be made in the pending suit, the same cannot be made anywhere else and as filing a fresh suit, unnecessarily leads to multiplicity of the proceedings, the application shall have to be entertained by the court, in which the suit is pending. 12. As to whether the amendment permitted in the present suit would take away the jurisdiction of the trial court, also only based on assumption so far as no plea in this regard has been raised by the petitioner, which the petitioner would always be free to raise in case he has any such objection and, therefore, the plea raised essentially amounts to putting the cart before the horse and as such the same is rejected. 13. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions, the same are therefore, dismissed.