JUDGMENT:- In this appeal by special leave, after hearing counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the High Court was clearly wrong in setting aside the order of the District Judge who had exercised a sound discretion in allowing the amendment of the plaint sought by the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case. The District Judge clearly found that if the amendment was allowed it would not cause any grave or serious prejudice to the defendant. All that the plaintiff sought by way of amendment was to insert a relief for recovery of possession. Neither the nature of the suit was altered nor was there any question of any valuable right of limitation having accrued to the defendant being taken away by the proposed amendment arise. In case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shilgonda Patil, 1957 SCR 595 this Court has held that the test for allowing the amendment is to find out whether the proposed amendment works any serious injustice to the other side. It is well settled that the Court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer of amendment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. It is also clear that a revisional Cour