HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL REVISION No. - 28 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Prateek Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Kulbhushan Singh Sikarwar, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The instant civil revision has been preferred under section 115 CPC assailing the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Additional Judge Small Causes, Court No.19, Lucknow in Civil Suit No.54 of 2024 whereby an application preferred by the revisionists under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the revisionists were the plaintiffs of Regular Suit No.54 of 2024 and had filed a suit for injunction. In the plaint, it had clearly been indicated that the plaintiffs had purchased the property by means of registered sale deed in respect of Khasra Plot No.1665/8 M and 166/8 M situate in Gram Brauli Khalilabad, Pargana Bijnour, Tehsil and District Lucknow. 4. It was also stated that the revisionists had indicated the boundaries of the disputed property. However, with passage of time, the boundaries had changed and therefore in order to clarify the pleadings, the plaintiffs moved an application for amendment whereby it was proposed that where the original boundaries of the plot was given in the plaint, the plaintiff additionally wanted the present boundaries to be incorporated. 5. It is urged that apart from this another clerical error was sought to be Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prateek Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dinesh Kumar, Kulbhushan Singh Sikarwar, Reena Gupta Gaurav Siddharth And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) Sumer Chandra Rawar And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) corrected by the amendment; inasmuch as in the prayer clause the boundaries of the plot in question was referred as para 2 whereas it should have been para 3. 6. It is urged that the Court misdirected itself in rejecting the application for amendment, especially when the pleadings had not been completed and the issues had not been framed, adding additional paragraph regarding current boundaries, would in no manner either substitute any cause of action nor any admission was sought to be removed by the amendment. A fact which had occurred, as a subsequent event was sought to be incorporated, which was necessary for an effective and complete adjudication between the parties. However, by rejecting the application, the Court has committed a jurisdictional error requiring interference by this Court. 7. Shri Sikarwar learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed aforesaid submissions and has submitted that the land in question has already been acquired. The boundaries which are sought to be incorporated by the amendment overlapse the boundaries as given by the defendants in his written statement. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was not at all justified for the plaintiffs to seek an amendment and the trial court has rightly rejected the application, hence the revision deserves to be dismissed. 8. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 9. As far as the issue regarding amendment is concerned, it is now well settled that any fact which is essential for an effective adjudication of the controversy can always be allowed. In the instant case, it may be noticed that the issues have yet not been framed and therefore the suit is at pre trial stage. 10. As far as the pre trial amendments are concerned, they are generally liberal construed. Considering the averments made in the plaint and the proposed amendment, this Court finds that there is no legal impediment in allowing the same; inasmuch as it is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff by the proposed amendment attempts to remov or seeks CLRE No. 28 of 2025 2 replacement of the earlier boundaries and is giving an altogether new boundaries for the property in question rather thus clear contention is that at the time when the property was purchased by the plaintiffs the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed were incorporated in the plaint. However, with passage of time, once the boundaries have changed, the same clarification is sought to be incorporated so that a composite cause of action can be considered and this would fall within the real test controversy, as applicable in civil trial. Moreover, there is no prejudice cause to the defendants, who can still file their response to the amended pleas. 11. This Court finds that the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application by entering into the merits which is not the scope while entertaining an application for amendment. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not finds that the submission advanced by the counsel for the respondents can save the patent illegality in the order passed by the trial court dated 20.03.2025. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. The application for amendment shall stands allowed. Learned counsel for the revisionists shall appear before the trial court on 18th of December, 2025 and shall move a proper application seeking to carry out the amendment as allowed by this Court to carry out the necessary amendments. The trial court shall henceforth proceed and endeavour be made to conclude the proceedings as early as possible. 13. With the aforesaid, the revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 12, 2025 ank CLRE No. 28 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench