JUDGMENT : S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J. Both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.6678/2014 by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under:- The appellant in both the appeals was the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed by him against the 1 st respondent – defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to suit schedule immovable property. The 1 st respondent filed his written statement not only contesting the suit but also put forth the counter claim for permanent injunction and other reliefs against the plaintiff in relation to the written statement schedule property. The said counter claim was contested by the appellant – plaintiff and after completion of pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues:- “1) Does the plaintiff prove that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of suit? 2) Does the plaintiff prove that there is interference by the defendant to her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property? 3) Does the plaintiff prove that, she is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant? 4) What order or decree? Additional Issues framed on 7.12.2018 1) Whether the defendant proves that he is in possession of written statement schedule property as on the date of suit ? 2) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the written statement schedule property ? 3) Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?” 3. Plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and marked documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P22 while the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and Exs.D1 to D24 were marked by him. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and decreeing the counter claim of the defendant. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dismissing her suit, the plaintiff has preferred RFA No.730/2021. So also, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the counter claim of the defendant, plaintiff has preferred RFA No.731/2021. 5. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dismissing her suit, the plaintiff has preferred RFA No.730/2021. So also, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the counter claim of the defendant, plaintiff has preferred RFA No.731/2021. 5. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, respondents 2 and 3 in both the appeals sought impleadment on the ground that they had purchased the property from 1 st respondent – defendant and this Court has permitted the respondents 2 and 3 to be impleaded in the present appeals as additional respondents. 6. Heard leaned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 7. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in RFA No.730/2021, the appellant – plaintiff has filed among others the following applications; (i) I.A.1/2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint; (ii) I.A.4/2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint; (iii) I.A.2/2023 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint; (iv) I.A.1/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of additional evidence. 8. The said applications have been opposed by the respondents. 9. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeals: (i) Whether the applications I.A.1/2022, I.A.4/2022, I.A.2/2023 and I.A.1/2023 filed by the appellant in RFA No.730/2021 deserve to be allowed? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeals? Re-Point No.(i): 10. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that as per the impugned judgment and decree, the suit of the appellant – plaintiff was dismissed, while the counter claim of the 1 st respondent – defendant was decreed in his favour against the appellant. As stated supra, the suit of the plaintiff was one for bare / permanent injunction simpliciter in relation to the suit schedule property. By way of the proposed amendment as sought for in I.A.1/2022, I.A.4/2022 and I.A.2/2023, appellant – plaintiff in RFA No.730/2021 seeks to amend the plaint in the instant O.S.No.6678/2014 by incorporating additional prayers for declaration, possession etc., as well as corresponding pleadings in this regard. By way of the proposed amendment as sought for in I.A.1/2022, I.A.4/2022 and I.A.2/2023, appellant – plaintiff in RFA No.730/2021 seeks to amend the plaint in the instant O.S.No.6678/2014 by incorporating additional prayers for declaration, possession etc., as well as corresponding pleadings in this regard. Though the said applications are opposed by the respondents, a perusal of the proposed amendments will clearly indicate that the same are necessary and essential for effective and complete adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. So also, the proposed amendment cannot be said to be malafide in nature nor would it change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action. Further, no prejudice can be said to be caused to the respondents if the amendment was allowed especially when the respondents would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and their interest / defences can be adequately and sufficiently safeguarded by directing that the proposed amendment sought for in the application shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned and considered from the date of the aforesaid amendment applications in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in several judgments including the judgment in the cases of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C.Hanumanthappa vs. H.B.Shivakumar – AIR 2015 SC 3364 , wherein amendment was permitted subject to the said conditions and by leaving open the question / issue of limitation to be decided by the Trial Court afresh in accordance with law. It is also pertinent to note that having regard to the principles governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Apex Court and this Court in various judgments including the cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors – AIR 2022 SC 4256 , in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the aforesaid applications viz., I.A.1/2022, I.A.4/2022 and I.A.2/2023 for amendment of the plaint filed by the appellant – plaintiff in RFA No.730/2021 deserves to be allowed. 10.1 The appellant – plaintiff in RFA No.730/2021 has also filed I.A.1/2023 for permission to produce additional documents. 10.1 The appellant – plaintiff in RFA No.730/2021 has also filed I.A.1/2023 for permission to produce additional documents. In this context, the documents sought to be produced are also relevant, material and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal and the Affidavit in support of the application makes out valid and sufficient ground as to why the said documents could not be produced by the appellant – plaintiff in the suit before the Trial Court. As stated earlier, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the appellant is permitted to produce additional documents since they would have an opportunity to impeach the same before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that I.A.1/2023 filed by the appellant – plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permission to adduce additional evidence deserves to be allowed. 10.2. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in favour of the appellant by allowing I.A.1/2022, I.A.4/2022 and I.A.2/2023 as well as I.A.1/2023. Re-Point No.(ii):- 11. The next question that arises for consideration is with regard to the procedure to be followed by this Court pursuant to allowing the applications referred to supra. 11.1. As stated earlier, the plaintiff having initially filed a suit for bare / permanent injunction simpliciter, the same has now been permitted to be amended and converted into a suit for declaration, possession and other reliefs by virtue of allowing the aforesaid applications. Further, the application for additional evidence has also been allowed by this Court. Under these circumstances, it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the suit as well as the counter claim afresh in accordance with law. 11.2 Accordingly, Point No.(ii) is also answered in favour of the appellant. 12. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Both RFA No.730/2021 and RFA No.731/2021 are hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.6678/2014 insofar as it relates to decreeing the counter claim filed by respondent No.1 – defendant is hereby set aside. (iii) The impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to dismissing the suit of the appellant – plaintiff is hereby set aside. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.6678/2014 insofar as it relates to decreeing the counter claim filed by respondent No.1 – defendant is hereby set aside. (iii) The impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to dismissing the suit of the appellant – plaintiff is hereby set aside. (iv) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the suit as well as counter claim afresh in accordance with law. (v) IA No.1/2022, 4/2022 and 2/2023 filed by the appellant in RFA No.730/2021 are hereby allowed and the amendment sought for by the appellant-plaintiff in all the applications are hereby allowed, subject to the condition that the amendment sought for in all the applications shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the dates of filing of the respective applications and the question of limitation is kept open to be decided by the Trial Court. (vi) The Trial Court is directed to implead respondents No.2 and 3 herein as additional defendants to the suit and issue notice to them and proceed further in the matter. (vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents-defendants to file written statement/additional written statement to the plaint/amended plaint and take up all defences including limitation etc., (viii) Liberty is also received in favour of all parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence / additional evidence in support of their respective claims. (ix) I.A.No.1/2023 filed by the appellant in RFA No.730/2021 is hereby allowed and the documents produced along with the application are received on record. (x) Registry is directed to transmit IA No.1/2023 along with additional documents to the Trial Court for consideration in accordance with law. (xi) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 12.01.2026 without awaiting further notice from the Trial Court. (xii) The Trial Court shall permit the appellant-plaintiff to amend the plaint as sought for in IA No.1/2022, 4/2022 and 2/2023 and file amendment plaint within a period of one month from 12.01.2026. (xiii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from 12.01.2026. (xii) The Trial Court shall permit the appellant-plaintiff to amend the plaint as sought for in IA No.1/2022, 4/2022 and 2/2023 and file amendment plaint within a period of one month from 12.01.2026. (xiii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from 12.01.2026. (xiv) It is further directed that till disposal of the suit and the counter claim afresh as stated supra, the parties shall maintain status-quo in all respects in relation to the suit schedule property and counter claim / written statement schedule property till disposal of the suit. (xv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including limitation etc., are kept open to be decided by the Trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the same.