In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3112 of 2009 Date of decision: October 15, 2009 Rakesh Kumar and another .. Petitioners Vs. Darshana Rani .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. N.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.K. Verma, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the order dated 27.4.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagraon, dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint. The petitioners-plaintiffs (herein referred as 'the petitioners') had filed a suit for possession of the demised premises on the basis of the adverse possession claiming that the property is ancestral coparcenary, with a consequential relief for grant of injunction restraining the defendant-respondent (herein referred as 'the respondent') from interfering in their peaceful possession. The respondent contested the suit. However, immediately after filing of the written statement, the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC claiming that the plea of adverse possession has been set up by them due to inadvertence. However, they wanted to set up the plea that the petitioners are entitled to inherit the suit property along with the respondent in equal shares being legal heirs of Ramji Dass. They wanted to insert this plea by way of amendment in the plaint by inserting para No.4(a), (b) and (c) to that effect. The trial court while holding that the pleas sought to be introduced and the pleas already taken are mutually inconsistent and the petitioner could not destroy the admission already made by him in the plaint by way of subsequent amendment. Eventually it dismissed the application. Civil Revision No. 3112 of 2009 -2- *** Ordinarily the petitioners are the dominus lite and best judge of their own interest. The court should be liberal enough in case of amendment of the pleadings. All amendments shall be generally permissible when they are necessary for determination of real controversy between the parties to the suit. The main claim of the petitioner is to seek ownership over the property may be by way of adverse possession or on the basis of the title traceable to his ancestors. The introduction by amendment of inconsistent or contradictory allegations in negation of the admitted position on facts or mutually destructive allegations of fact are also impermissible though inconsistent pleas of the admitted position can be introduced by way of amendment. The power of amendment has been granted to the courts in larger interest of doing full justice to the parties. Similar observations were made in case M/s Ganesh Trading Co. vs. Moji Ram AIR 1978 SC 484. The general rule, therefore, is that all the amendments are to be allowed which do not purport to set up a new case and which would not work injustice to the other side and which will be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question into controversy between the parties. The real question into controversy in the present case is whether the petitioners are owners in possession of the suit property, therefore, the inconsistent or alternative plea which he wants to set up could be allowed to be taken to protect the larger interest of the parties to do full justice to it. Even otherwise, if without getting amendment he had succeeded in proving his title over the property without proving his adverse possession even this controversy could be decided. It was observed by this court in case Krishan & another vs. Rajender & another 1999 (1) CLJ (C, Crl. Revenue) 51 that the plaintiff could take alternative pleads which are permissible in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Similarly, the Apex Court in case G. Nagamma and another vs. Siromanamma and another (1996) 2 SCC 25 observed that the plaintiff is entitled to plead even inconsistent pleas. In this case they are seeking alternative relief. The application was for amendment of the plaint, whereby, neither the cause of action has been changed nor the relief was materially effected, as such the amendment should have been allowed. The intent and purport of the judgment as Civil Revision No. 3112 of 2009 -3- *** rendered by the Apex Court is that at the time of allowing the amendment is to see if there is no variation in the cause of action or the relief claimed and in other cases, the application could be refused, however, the plaint could be allowed to be amended even in case when the plaintiff wanted to submit inconsistent or alternative plea. The trial court has not taken note of the aforesaid factual and legal position of the law. Resultantly, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 27.4.2009 and allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint. October 15, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge