A court should be liberal in granting amendment of pleadings so as to achieve the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, but no such amendment should be allowed so as to cause serious injustice or irreparable loss to the other side.

( 1 ) THIS Revisional Petition is directed against Order No. 10 dated 18-3-1994 Passed by the Asstt. District Judge, Ranaghat in Title Appeal No. 50 of 1993 which arised of Title Suit No. 8 of 1992 of the Court of Additional Munsif, Ranaghat. By this impugned Order, the Plaintiff / Appellant's prayer for amendment of the plaint at the stage of the Appeal was rejected.

( 2 ) THE Petitioner before this Court, being the Plaintiff/ Appellant, had brought a Suit for eviction of the Defendant / O. P. on the ground of default in payment of rent as also on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises. The Suit, however, failed on both the counts and, accordingly, there was an Order of dismissal of the Suit as per judgment passed on March 30, 1993 by the trial Court. Thereupon, there was an Appeal filed against the judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court. During the course of the Appeal, the Plaintiff/ Appellant filed a Petition dated January 19, 1994 under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C. P. C. praying to amend the Plaint by deleting one or the other paragraphs of original Plaint and substituting those with some additional paragraphs therein by way of amendment. At this juncture, it may first be pointed out that as per the case pleaded in the Original Plaint, the Plaintiff/ Appellant had contended that the Suit premises was a part and parcel of her residential building and that she required the Suit premises for residential purpose in as much as the accommodation already available to her was not sufficient as per her reasonable requirement which existed at the time of the institution of the suit. By virtue of the amendment as sought for, the main thrust of the pleading has been shifted from the requirement of residential purpose to that of suitable accommodation for a Primary School being run by her grandson. The family set-up of the Plaintiff is also sought to be altered by the proposed amendment.

( 3 ) THE amendment as sought for by the Plaintiff/ Appellant was vehemently objected to on behalf of the Defendant / O. P. mainly on the ground that the proposed amendments would change the nature of the Suit with certain new facts which, if allowed, would cause serious injustice to the defence and further that the delay occurred in the alleged amendment has not been properly explained by the Plaintiff/ Appellant.

( 4 ) BEFORE I look into the merits of the impugned order, it is apt to point out that the Provisions of Law under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C. P. C. is very wide and the Court can allow amendment of pleadings even at the appellate stage for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties but the judicial pronouncement from time-to-time have also laid down certain criteria so as to determine whether a particular amendment in the pleading, depending upon individual facts of a particular case, should be allowed or not. I may put emphasis on the point that simply because an amendment or alteration in the pleading is sought for at the stage of the Appeal, it can't be refused on the score alone. It was quite open for the party seeking amendment in the pleading to explain the delay as to why such amendment was not sought for at the stage of the trial Court. It would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1979 SC 551. In that case, it was held that there is no impediment or bar against an Appellate Court directing amendment of pleadings so as to enable a party to raise a new plea, but it was necessary that the Appellate Court should observe certain principle subject to which amendments of pleadings are to be granted. It was further held in the aforesaid case that one of the circumstances which should be taken into consideration before amendment is granted, is the delay in making the application seeking such amendment and if made at the Appellate stage, the reason why it was not made in the tri