ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- ^^vr% izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk vkns'k Qjek;sa rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; fon~oku flfu;j flfoy tt] vksfl;k¡ tks/kiqj ftyk esa yfEcr vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds izkFkZuk i= la[;k 28@2023 ¼16@2023½ esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 15-02-2024 ¼,usDpj&7½ dks vikLr o fujLr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k Qjekos rFkk izkFkhZx.k ds izkFkZuk i= ds vUrxZr vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 lifBr /kkjk 151 lhihlh ¼,usDpj&5 dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk vkns’k QjekosA vU; dksbZ mfpr vkns'k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa ikfjr djuk vko';d le>rk gks] lkfnj QjekosaA^^ 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1’s residential land is situated in Khasra No.1597/28, Village Osiya and petitioner No. 2’s residential land is situated in Khasra No.1588/63, while respondent No. 4’s occupied land is situated in Khasra No.1588/66, wherein a colony has been carved out. The land of petitioner No.2, measuring 2 bigha, is entered in the records by the name of Mr. Khushlaram as per the measurement done on 21.11.2019. Khushlaram had sold 10 biswa land to his wife, Kamla and 1 bigha 10 biswa land to the petitioner No. 2 by way of a registered sale deed, wherein the colony has been carved out into 41 plots thus, the petitioners and respondent No. 4 are having peaceful possession on the said colony. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, raised a boundary wall of stones as well as of fencing on the eastern side of the said land on 17.02.2023. Appalled by the said act of the respondent No.1 to 3, the petitioners filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners being aggrieved by by such act of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit (Annexure-1) for permanent and mandatory injunction before the learned Trial Court. Along with which, an application seeking temporary injunction (Annexure-2) was also filed with a request to restrain the respondent nos. 1 to 3 from interfering and maintain the status quo of the said land till the pendency of the suit. 4. Post the service of notice, a reply to the temporary injunction application was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 while denying all the facts on 18.12.2023 (Annexure-3). 1 to 3 from interfering and maintain the status quo of the said land till the pendency of the suit. 4. Post the service of notice, a reply to the temporary injunction application was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 while denying all the facts on 18.12.2023 (Annexure-3). During the pendency of the application, the petitioners had preferred an application (Annexure-4) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) while submitting that on receiving information, prior to filing the suit along with the temporary injunction by the petitioners, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have erected an iron gate and stone slab on the land of the petitioners and have constructed a shield over them. Thus, the said submission was requested to be added in paragraph No. 6 and 11 (2) of the plaint preferred by the petitioners. A similar application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 was also presented along with the application for temporary injunction preferred by the petitioners (Annexure-5). 5. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 did not file reply to the application for amendment to the suit as well as the application for temporary injunction and thus, they were argued finally before the learned Trial Court. 6. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure-6) allowing the application for amendment to the suit while dismissing the application for amendment to the application for temporary injunction on the same day, 15.02.2024 (Annexure-7). 7. Thus, the petitioner, being aggrieved of the order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure-7), passed by the learned Trial Court insofar it rejects amendment sought in the application for temporary injunction, has preferred this writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the learned Trial Court had allowed the application for amendment to the original suit under Order VI Rule 17, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court not to allow application seeking amendment in the application for temporary injunction, inasmuch as the amendment has been sought on the same terms in TI application as well. The relevant paragraphs of the amendment to the suit under reads as under:- ^^blfy, oknhx.k ds okn i= ds in la[;k 6 esa ;g tksM+k tkuk vko’;d gS fd ^izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 }kjk oknhx.k dh Hkwfe ij voS/k :i ls yksgs dh QkVd pढ+kbZ gS rFkk ekSds ij voS/k :i ls iêh;ka jksidj ml ij pnj pढkdj ढkfy;s dk fuekZ.k fd;k gS blh izdkj okn i= la[;k 11¼2½ esa ;g tksM+k vko';d gS fd ^izfroknh la[;k 1 o 3 }kjk voS/k :i ls tks yksgs dh QkVd pढkbZ gS rFkk iRFkj dh iêh;ka jksidj ml ij pÌj pढkdj tks ढkfy;s dk fuekZ.k fd;k gS mls izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 ds [kpsZ ij gVk;s tkus dk vkns'k Qjek;k tkosaA^^ The relevant paragraphs of the amendment to the temporary injunction application under reads as under:- ^^blfy, izkFkhZx.k ds izkFkZuk i= ds in la[;k 7 esa ;g tksM+k tkuk vko’;d gS fd ^vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 }kjk izkFkhx.k dh Hkwfe ij voS/k :i ls yksgs dh QkVd pढ+kbZ gS rFkk ekSds ij voS.k :i ls iV~Vh;ka jksidj ml ij pnj pढkdj ढkfy;s dk fuekZ.k fd;k gSA^^ 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that only if the prayer is amended, the entire nature of the suit changes, however in the present case, only the pleadings are sought to be amended. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners only want to disturb the peaceful use of the property of the respondents, by way of seeking amendment to their temporary injunction application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. He further submits that the amendment to the temporary injunction application is only sought to delay the proceedings and thus, it was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court and for the purpose of the same, he relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) by L.R.s and Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 940 . The relevant para is reproduced as under:- “5. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. reported in AIR 2019 SC 940 . The relevant para is reproduced as under:- “5. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. 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.” 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that Khasra No. 1588/66 is an agricultural land and therefore, the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction. The land was subsequently demarcated and measured on 19.04.2023, wherein it was seen that there was a wall, an iron gate and stones and that there was no plot on the disputed spot. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused material available on record and judgments cited at the Bar. 13. This court finds that the provision of Order VI Rule 17 can be divided into two parts, wherein the first part endows upon the court a discretionary power to allow for amendment while the second part bestows a mandatory pre-condition that has be satisfied while allowing any application under Order VI Rule 17. The relevant provision reads as under:- “17. This court finds that the provision of Order VI Rule 17 can be divided into two parts, wherein the first part endows upon the court a discretionary power to allow for amendment while the second part bestows a mandatory pre-condition that has be satisfied while allowing any application under Order VI Rule 17. The relevant provision reads as under:- “17. Amendment of pleadings.— The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 14. This court also observes that in the case of M/s Revajeetu Builders v. M/s Narayanswamy & Sons & Ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 , has held that one of the important factors to be considered while allowing for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 is that no prejudice is caused to the other party by way of making such amendment to the pleadings. It was also upheld that such amendment does not fundamentally change the nature and character of the case. The relevant para is reproduced as under:- “67. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. (1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case? (2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide? (3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? And (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.” 15. And (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.” 15. This court further finds that in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash v. Nankhu & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 , it was upheld that in a civil suit, the trial is set to commence when the issues are settled and when the case is set down for recording of evidence, however, in the present case, the suit has not yet reached this stage and only an ad interim order for maintaining the status quo has been granted by the learned Trial Court on 07.10.2023. Therefore, under Order VI Rule 17, the Court can allow the amendment if filed before the commencement of the Trial, provided no prejudice is caused to the other party. The relevant para is reproduced as under:- “13. At this point the question arises : When does the trial of an election petition commence or what is the meaning to be assigned to the word 'trial' in the context of an election petition? In a civil suit, the trial begins when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence. All the proceedings before that stage are treated as proceedings preliminary to trial or for making the case ready for trial. As held by this Court in several decided cases, this general rule is not applicable to the trial of election petitions as in the case of election petitions, all the proceedings commencing with the presentation of the election petition and upto the date of decision therein are included within the meaning of the word 'trial'.” 16. Thus, looking into the circumstances of the case in hand, this court is of the view that since the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 has been allowed by the learned Trial Court in the original suit vide order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure-6), the same ought to have been allowed in the application seeking temporary injunction and that, the amendment sought for, comprises of the same plea, which in no manner changes the fundamental nature of the suit or causes prejudice to the other party. Once the amendment in the plaint has been permitted to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court then the corresponding amendment in the Temporary Injunction application would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the suit, more so when the trial was at the nascent stage. 17. As an upshot of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure-7) rejecting petitioners’ application seeking amendment in application for temporary injunction, is quashed and set aside. The application preferred by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for seeking amendment in Temporary Injunction application is allowed. 18. The stay applications and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.