WPMS No. 793 of 2004 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. List has been revised. No one appears for the respondents nor any counter affidavit has been filed. Heard Shri Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the plaintiff and had filed a suit for a declaration that he should be declared the owner and in possession of the property mentioned in scheduled A on the basis of the will dated 10th February, 1985 executed by Mahant Shankar Prasad. This suit was dismissed against which the plaintiff filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. praying for certain amendments in the plaint, namely, that in the relief clause, the plaintiff be declared the owner and in possession of the property mentioned in Schedule B instead of Schedule A and further prayed that paragraph be added after paragraph 24 of the plaint to the effect that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the property in dispute and that the defendant had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/S 23 of the said Act. The amendment application was rejected by an order dated 11/08/2004 on the ground that the plaintiff wants to change the nature of suit and wants to reopen the suit. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that the amendment sought does not change the nature of the suit nor there is any attempt on the part of the plaintiff to delay the proceedings. The law is well settled that the Court should be liberal in considering the amendment application and should adopt a liberal approach, especially, when the amendment does not change the nature of the suit nor there is any attempt to delay the proceedings. In the present case, the Court only finds that a legal issue has been raised in proposed paragraph 24 of the plaint and the relief clause is being changed confining its claim to the property mentioned in Schedule B. Such proposed amendment in the opinion of the Court does not change the nature of the suit. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The amendment application is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- which the petitioner will deposit before the court below. The same can be withdrawn by the defendant. Certified copy of the order shall be sent by the Registry to the trial court within two weeks for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 22.12.2011 Shiv