were legally entitled to. In fact, a perusal of Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the plaint discloses that the Defendants had denied to deliver the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs on 06.05.2010 and this aspect of the matter have also been made a part of the cause of action in Paragraph No.7. 4. By way of the amendment which have been sought for by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17, although the sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) relates to better particulars being furnished but the reading of the paragraph No. (d) and (f) would show a totally contrary picture of what has been stated in the original plaint inasmuch as in paragraph No. (d) by which the amendment was sought for to paragraph No. 3 of the original plaint, it has been mentioned that the plaintiffs took possession over the two plots of land with two specified boundaries and were put in possession by the seller at the time of sale. It was also mentioned that the possession of lands which was taken over by the plaintiffs within the boundaries does not tally with the boundaries of the two sale deeds and as such the plaintiffs also sought for rectification of the boundaries of the two sale deeds. In Paragraph No. (f) which is the proposed amendment of paragraph No.5 of the original plaint, a completely new case has been sought to be incorporated whereby it has been mentioned that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed by the defendants from the suit land by putting a lock whereas in the original plaint, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they were not at all handed over the possession of the suit land. 5. Under such circumstances, the amendment which have been sought for would definitely change the nature and character of the suit and also if allowed, would be permitting certain admissions in the plaint to be resiled which cannot be permitted in the garb of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that there is a mistake in
