JUDGMENT : (Satyen Vaidya, J.) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 12.06.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Baijnath, District Kangra in CMA No.291 of 2024 in Civil Suit No.79 of 2013, whereby the application of respondents/defendants for amendment of written statement has been allowed. 2. The petitioner is plaintiff in Civil Suit No.79 of 2013 pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Baijnath, District Kangra. The respondents are the defendants and for the sake of clarity, the parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they hold before learned trial Court. 3. The suit of the plaintiff is for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from raising any sort of construction on land comprised in Khata No.208 min, Khatauni No.404, Khasra Nos.361, 362, 635, 692, 700, 710, 734, 738, 743, 744, 746, 749, kita 12, measuring 01-07- 73 hectares (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”). 4. The plaintiff has alleged that he is one of the co- owners in possession of the suit land. According to him though, defendant No.4 was also one of the co-sharers, rest of the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The plaintiff has also maintained that the suit land is unpartitioned and for such reason also defendant No.4 could neither exercise right of possession over any specific portion of the suit land nor could he allow the others to use the same. 5. The defendants are contesting the suit. In the written statement filed by them, it has been averred that the plaintiff and another co-owner of suit land named Rakesh Kumar had sold specific land with possession, out of the suit land, to defendant No.4 and thus, defendant No.4 exercised right of exclusive possession. It has further been stated that the defendant No.4 has entered into an agreement dated 07.01.2013 with defendants No.1 to 3 and thereby has allowed them to utilize the land for the purposes of construction of some component(s) of Hydro Power Project. 6. The defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment to the written statement. They held that during the pendency of the suit, the suit land has been partitioned and some portion thereof has been purchased by defendants No.1 to 3 from defendant No.4 by way of registered sale deed. 6. The defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment to the written statement. They held that during the pendency of the suit, the suit land has been partitioned and some portion thereof has been purchased by defendants No.1 to 3 from defendant No.4 by way of registered sale deed. In view of such subsequent developments, the defendants intended to amend the written statement for the purpose of incorporating aforesaid facts. 7. The plaintiff contested the application by filing a reply. The main thrust in objecting the grant of prayer was on the delay in seeking the amendment. It was submitted that the partition of suit land had taken place in the year 2015 and sale deed was also executed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 in 2017, whereas the application for amendment was belatedly filed in the year 2023. It was further submitted that the partition had not become final the plaintiff had filed an appeal against the order of partition which was pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. 8. Learned trial Court has allowed the application for amendment of written statement by holding that the proposed amendment was imperative and proper for effective adjudication of the case. The amendment was result of subsequent developments which had taken place during the pendency of litigation and was necessary to be allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It further held that no prejudice was likely be caused to the plaintiff as the plaintiff will get sufficient chance to rebut the pleadings. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that the plaintiff will be prejudiced by allowance of amendment at such a belated stage. He pointed out that the plaintiff had closed his evidence in the year 2015. The defendants had been getting the case adjourned without examining their witnesses and lastly at belated stage they came with this application. 11. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice core ingredients of order 6 rule 17 of the Code, as culled out in the matter of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors, 2024 SCC online SC 2615 “6. Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as is well-known, pertains to the amendment of pleadings in a civil suit. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice core ingredients of order 6 rule 17 of the Code, as culled out in the matter of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors, 2024 SCC online SC 2615 “6. Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as is well-known, pertains to the amendment of pleadings in a civil suit. It 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.” What can be understood from a reading of the above provision is that, (a) amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage; (b) amendment must be necessary to determine the “real question of controversy” “inter se parties”; (c) if such amendment is sought to be brought after commencement of trial the Court must, in allowing the same come to a conclusion that in spite of best efforts on the part of the party to the suit, the same could not have been brought before the point of time, when it was actually brought.” 12. No doubt, by amendment caused to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code by Amendment Act, 2012, a proviso has been appended which places impediment on the power of Courts to allow amendment in pleadings after framing of issues, such amendment cannot be allowed unless the court is satisfied that the party was prevented from amending the pleadings before framing of issues by certain reasons despite exercise of due diligence. 13. In the case in hand, the fact situation is different. It is not in dispute that the facts sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the written statement were non-existent at the time of framing of issues. As per the own case of the defendants, the partition had taken place in the year 2015 and the sale deed was executed in the year 2017. It is not in dispute that the facts sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the written statement were non-existent at the time of framing of issues. As per the own case of the defendants, the partition had taken place in the year 2015 and the sale deed was executed in the year 2017. Indisputably, the issues had been framed much before the said dates. 14. The defendants have not sought the amendment with promptitude, but that cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for amendment unless it is found to be malafide or having potential of causing serious prejudice to the other side. 15 In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builder Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “25. The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defense which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favor of the plaintiff is not withdrawn. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defense taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. The proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by costs. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates in defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. The delay in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement. 26 to 70……………. 71. The delay in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement. 26 to 70……………. 71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed. (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. 16. It cannot be disputed that the facts sought to be incorporated in the written statement by defendants by way of amendment are relevant to the matter in dispute. The initial defence raised by the defendants was that defendant No.4 had right of ownership and possession over the suit land as a co- owner and he had authorized the other defendants to use the suit land for the purposes of constructions etc. The initial defence raised by the defendants was that defendant No.4 had right of ownership and possession over the suit land as a co- owner and he had authorized the other defendants to use the suit land for the purposes of constructions etc. Now, on account of subsequent events, defendants No.1 to 3 have become owner of some part of the suit land by virtue of purchased by them from defendant No.4 through a registered sale deed. Similarly, the plea of partition having been effected between the co-sharers during pendency of suit will also be necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the matter. Thus, there is no antithesis between earlier and subsequent defence. The amendment, therefore, has rightly been held necessary for complete and effective determination of the real question in controversy between the parties. 17. The delay in seeking amendment by defendants, as alleged by the plaintiff, cannot be an impediment in the instant case for the reasons firstly, that the proviso to order 6 rule 17 of the Code is not attracted defendants, secondly the defendants are yet to lead their evidence and the plaintiff shall get every opportunity to rebut the contentions now being raised by the defendants and lastly, as per the plaintiff himself the partition proceedings have not yet attained finality and hence, the delay, if any, on the part of the defendants in seeking the amendment could be reasonably considered to have been caused by the pending litigations. In normal circumstance, one tends to waits for the final adjudication on disputed questions, before making effort to take the benefit of the same. 18. In light of the peculiar facts of instant case as also keeping in view the exposition of law as noticed above, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.