ALI BAIG, J.---This civil revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment/order dated 02-10-2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, in C.F.A. No.01/19, whereby , the learned Additional District Judge has set aside the judgment/ order dated 30.11.2018, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Gilgit, in Civil Suit No.09/ 2018, and has allowed the petition of the respondent No.1/plaintif f filed under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151, C.P .C. for amendment in the plaint.
2. Precisely facts of the case leading to filing of this civil revision petition are that petitioner No.1/plaintif f had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding certain suit property described in the heading of plaint against the present respondents/defendants in the trial court. The present respondents Nos.1 and 2, being contesting defendants in the suit, conte sted the suit by filing of their written statement in the trial court. The respondents Nos.3 to 8 have also contested the suit by filing their joint written statement in the trial court.
3. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court has framed issues and matter was fixed for plaintif f's evidence. In the meanwhile, the plaintif f/ respondent No.1 filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint. On 30.11.2018, the learned trial court, after hearing arguments on the aforesaid application on behalf of the parties, dismissed the application of the respondent No.1/plaintif f filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P .C.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforementioned order of the learned trial court, the present respondent No.1/plaintif f had filed a civil first appeal in the court of learned Additional District Judge Gilgit. The learned Additional District Judge, after hearing arguments on behalf of the parties, allowed appeal of the present respondent No. 1 vide impugned judgment/order dated 02.10.2019. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/ order passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the petitioners/ defendants Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this civil revision petition before this Court.
5. Preliminary arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners heard and record of the case also perused.
6. From perusal of contents of application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151, C.P.C., it reveals that present respondent No.1 had filed the said application on the ground that initially the plaintif f had filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the trial court as suit land was in his possession. During pendency of the said suit, the present petitioners/respondents Nos.1 and 2 forcibly took the possession of suit land; therefore, the plaintif f wants to add/insert words "possession of suit land" in the heading of suit/p laint through the amendment in question.
7. From perusal of contents of application filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., it reveals that respondent No.1/ plaintif f seeks to insert words "possession of suit land" in the heading of the plaint. If proposed amendment is allowed, neither nature of suit nor cause of action will be changed as admittedly , during pendency of the suit, the present petitioners/defendants Nos.1 and 2 have forcibly occupied the disputed land.
8. It is a settled principle of law that amendment in the pleading can be allowed at any stage of proceedings if the proposed amendment does not change complexion of suit. Moreover , it is also a settled principle of law that, during pendency of proceedings, any fresh deve lopment took place then the court would not overlook such development and that when it is material for the purpose of deciding real controversy between the parties.
9. I am of the considered view that the amendment so allowed by the first appellate court will neither change nature/complexion of suit nor any afresh cause: of action will be introduced , as adding/inserting of words "possession of suit land" is eminently justified due to change in circumstances. Thus, the learned first appellate court has rightly allowed the application of respondent No.1 filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. by accepting Civil First Appeal.
10. In view of the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the learned first appellate court has not committed any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court by invoking its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this civil revision petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed in limine. File.