JUDGMENT : Romesh Verma, J. The present petition arises out of order, as passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Solan, dated 10.01.2022, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been ordered to be rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit under Sections 38 and 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction. It has been averred in the plaint that the suit property i.e Bunglow No.17, Survey No.24, Dagshai Cantt. Dagshai, Kumarhatti, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. was purchased by the plaintiff with his real brother Sh. Tejwant Singh Cheema, husband of the defendant Smt. Raj Cheema and the sale deed was duly registered in the joint names of both plaintiff and the husband of the defendant. After the death of Sh. Tejwant Singh Cheema, the share of the property was inherited by the defendant and his daughters, who are presently living in abroad, being his class one legal heirs. After the purchase of the suit property, the plaintiff is residing regularly in the said property and is dealing with the concerned government department and Dagshai Cantonment office. Since the suit property is joint between the parties, so the defendant has no legal right to change the nature of the suit land by raising any construction on the best and specific portion of the suit land. Further, it has been averred that the defendant has no right to create charge on the suit land. Therefore, the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff against the present the defendant. 3. The suit has been contested by the defendant/respondent by filing written statement, raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action etc. On merits, all the averments, as made in the plaint, have been refuted and it has been averred that the suit is vexatious, false, therefore, it is liable to be rejected. 4. It will be pertinent to mention here that the present petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit on 14.11.2018 and the defendant/respondent filed written statement on 07.01.2019. Learned trial Court framed the issues on 20.08.2019 and thereafter, when the case was fixed for evidence of the parties, an application for amendment of the plaint has been instituted by the present petitioner/plaintiff. 4. It will be pertinent to mention here that the present petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit on 14.11.2018 and the defendant/respondent filed written statement on 07.01.2019. Learned trial Court framed the issues on 20.08.2019 and thereafter, when the case was fixed for evidence of the parties, an application for amendment of the plaint has been instituted by the present petitioner/plaintiff. As per averments, as made in the application, it has been averred that after passing of status quo order, as passed by learned trial Court, the present defendant put locks on the part of the undivided suit property with the sole intention to oust the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit property for all times to come. The petitioner has placed on record the photographs in order to demonstrate the said contention. Since, the suit property is joint between the parties and the same has not been partitioned by metes and bounds, therefore, no co-owner has legal right to oust the other co-owner by adopting forcible means as the respondent has done by placing locks on the parts of the undivided suit property. 5. The said application has been contested by the respondent by filing a detailed reply. It has been averred in the reply that the present application has been filed in order to prolong the litigation indefinitely and the petitioner/plaintiff is harassing an old lady who is 87 years old. It has been stated in the reply that application has been filed for the amendment of plaint, after framing of issues when various opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to adduce his evidence. Instead of leading evidence, in support of his contention, the present application has been filed just to prolong the matter perpetually. 6. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 10.01.2022 dismissed the application and, feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is contended by Mr. Vipin Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the plaintiff has made out a case for amendment of plaint. Therefore, after accepting the present petition, the application, as filed by the plaintiff, is required to be allowed and the plaint as filed by the plaintiff is required to be amended. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Therefore, after accepting the present petition, the application, as filed by the plaintiff, is required to be allowed and the plaint as filed by the plaintiff is required to be amended. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav Kanwar, learned counsel for respondents No.1(i) to 1(iii), has opposed the petition filed by the petitioner and defended the impugned order as passed by learned trial Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the case file. 10. Admittedly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendant/respondent. The suit was filed in the year 2018 and the defendant/respondent filed written statement in the year 2019. Learned trial Court framed issues on 20.08.2019 and thereafter, repeated opportunities were granted to lead evidence in order to prove his case. 11. It has come in the reply of the defendant/respondent that after the framing of issues, the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 25.11.2019. Thereafter, the case was fixed on 04.01.2020, 21.03.2020, 28.09.2020, 18.12.2020, 23.12.2020, 19.02.2021 and 19.03.2021. Instead of leading his evidence, the plaintiff filed the present application under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of plaint. 12. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 read as follows: “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.” 13. A perusal of provisions clearly stipulates 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. A perusal of provisions clearly stipulates 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. Now adverting to the application, which has been filed by the present petitioner, there is no averment in the application with respect to the fact that despite due diligence, the plaintiff could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial. The application is cryptic and does not meet the parameters as laid down under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 15. The pleadings, which have been placed on record before this Court, reveal that the case as set up by the plaintiff is for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prayer, which has been made by the plaintiff in the suit/plaint, covers the entire case, including the case as being set up in the application. 16. As far as the defiance of the order of status quo is concerned, the remedy for the said disobedience to the plaintiff lies somewhere else. The present application has been filed without any merit and substance and there is no explanation and plausible reason given in the application that why the plaintiff/applicant could not do the same before the commencement of trial. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. Revajeetu Builders vs M/s. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors., (2009)1 SCC 84 has held as follows: “FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DEALING WITH APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS: 63. 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? (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. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order VI Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Revajeetu Builders case (supra) has held that the first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the Court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courts' discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment. 19. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out and impress upon this Court that the said amendment is necessary for determination of the real point of controversy in hand. Already the plaintiff has prayed for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction which covers the plea of the plaintiff/applicant for the amendment. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that next parameter for allowing of the amendment is that no prejudice or injustice is caused to other party by allowing of the amendment. In the present case, the suit has been filed in the year 2018 and the issues were framed in the year 2019 and despite availing various opportunities, the plaintiff has failed to lead evidence. Therefore, in case, the application is allowed, the respondents/defendants shall be prejudiced and injustice would be caused to them. 21. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2886 of 2012, titled Basavaraj vs. Indira and Others , while dealing with the case of amendment, has held in paras 8, 8(i), 9, 10 and 12(i) as under: “8. Therefore, in case, the application is allowed, the respondents/defendants shall be prejudiced and injustice would be caused to them. 21. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2886 of 2012, titled Basavaraj vs. Indira and Others , while dealing with the case of amendment, has held in paras 8, 8(i), 9, 10 and 12(i) as under: “8. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides 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. In the case in hand, this is not even the pleaded case of respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Trial Court in the application for amendment that due diligence was there at the time of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed for by way of amendment. All what was pleaded was oversight. The same cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings at the fag end of the trial especially when admittedly the facts were in knowledge of the respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs. 8.1. The relevant paragraphs of the application seeking amendment of the plaint are reproduced hereunder: “2. That, due to over sight and by mistake the Plaintiff was unable to sought relief declaration of decree as null and void and unable to pay required court fee some unavoidable circumstances and the proposed amendment is very essential for deciding the matter in dispute 3. xxx 4. That, if the proposed amendment is allowed no prejudice will be cause to the other side, on the other hand if it is not allowed then the deponent will be put to great loss and will also leads multiplicity of litigation’s. Hence it is just and proper to allow the proposed amendment to meet the ends of justice.”(sic) 9. This Court in M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) by legal representatives and others 11 opined that an application for amendment may be rejected if it seeks to introduce totally different, new and inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of the suit. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. prevents an application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. prevents an application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue. The burden is on the party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not be sought earlier. It is not a matter of right. Paragraph No. 7 thereof is extracted below: “7.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 6 Rule 17 CPC 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.” (emphasis supplied) 10. Initially, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession. By way of amendment, relief of declaration of the compromise decree being null and void was also sought. The same would certainly change the nature of the suit, which may be impermissible. 11. xxxx 12. xxxx 12.1 In the case in hand, the compromise decree was passed on 14.10.2004 in which the plaintiffs were party. The application for amendment of the plaint was filed on 08.02.2010 i.e. 5 years and 03 months after passing of the compromise decree, which is sought to be challenged by way of amendment. The limitation for challenging any decree is three years (Reference can be made to Article 59 in Part-IV of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963). The application for amendment of the plaint was filed on 08.02.2010 i.e. 5 years and 03 months after passing of the compromise decree, which is sought to be challenged by way of amendment. The limitation for challenging any decree is three years (Reference can be made to Article 59 in Part-IV of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963). A fresh suit to challenge the same may not be maintainable. Meaning thereby, the relief sought by way of amendment was time barred. As with the passage of time, right had accrued in favour of the appellant with reference to challenge to the compromise decree, the same cannot be taken away. In case the amendment in the plaint is allowed, this will certainly cause prejudice to the appellant. What cannot be done directly, cannot be allowed to be done indirectly.” 22. None of the parameters as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court has been satisfied by the plaintiff/petitioner. Therefore, the learned trial court has passed a well reasoned order, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel , (2022) 4 SCC 181 , has held that while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as a Court for first appeal. The relevant paras of the said judgment read as under: “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.2 has observed:— “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 24. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 24. In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 25. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observation made here- in- above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition.