The court has a wide discretion to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, and delay in filing a petition for amendment is not a ground for rejection unless it causes injustice to the other party.

1. This is an application directed against an order rejecting an application for amendment of a plaint made under O.VI R.17 of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code).

2. It appears that the plaintiff filed the present suit in the year 1967 for a declaration "that the disputed land with trees was previously the Brit tenure of the plaintiff and is now the occupancy land of the plaintiffs under the provision of Land Reforms Act and is in possession of the plaintiffs........." He further prayed for a declaration that the order passed by the Block Development Officer assessing the rent of the disputed land in the names of defendants 2 and 3, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

3. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs case is that the property in suit belonged to his Guru who was the Mahanth and after him he stepped into his shoes and came into possession of the property left behind by him; that Babu Jharu Das was a devotee of the late Mahanth and defendants 2 and 3 are his sons; that at the time of vesting of zamindari the aforesaid two defendants were acting as pairvikar of the plaintiffs but dishonestly they took advantage of the situation and got themselves recorded as raiyats in respect of the lands in dispute. As a result, a cloud was cast on the title of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

4. On the other hand, the defendants plea was a denial of the status of the plaintiff as the chela of the late Mahanth, and according to them, their father Jharu Das had purchased the property by an oral sale. Thus they claimed title and possession of the land as such.

5. At the trial the parties joined issues on the following questions :-

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable ?

(ii) Have the plaintiffs got cause of action for it ?

(iii) Have the plaintiffs got right, title and interest over the suit property ?

(iv) Is the story of oral sale as set up by the defendants correct ?

(v) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled ?

The parties adduced evidence on these points. During the course of argument, however, a fresh point was raised as to whether the suit was maintainable in view of S.34 of the Specific Relief Act. At this stage the plaintiff filed the present application for leave to amend the plaint. By this application the plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint by adding a relief for confirmation or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the disputed land. He offered to pay ad valorem court-fee as well.

6. The court below rejected the prayer mainly on the ground that the petition had been filed late after the arguments in the case had been made. Secondly that since there was an objection to the maintainability of the suit raised as early as in the written statement, and further in view of the statement in the written statement that the plaintiff was not in possession but the defendants were, it is not a case of bona fide mistake on the part of the plaintiff to omit the relief prayed for. Thirdly, that the aforesaid amendment would change the nature of the suit.

7. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the court below has illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction in the circumstances mentioned above and the grounds therefor are not tenable in law. It has been contended in this respect that the delay in filing the petition was not by itself a ground on which the court below should have rejected the prayer. Secondly, it is said that the objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit was a vague and general statement and the actual objection with regard to the suit being hit by S.34 of the Specific Relief Act was not raised at any point of time earlier than the stage of arguments. Thirdly, it is said that a mere addition to the relief, for confirmation or recovery of possession, could not change the nature of the suit.

8. Before I discuss the points raised I would do well to indicate for the purposes of the guidance of courts below, t