The court has wide powers to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings in order to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.

( 1 ) THE Court : This is an application, in the nature of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the defendant in the aforesaid suit, Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:"amendment of pleadings : The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amount his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. "

( 2 ) TWO relevant purposes of such Order 6 Rule 17 are necessary to come to an appropriate conclusion i. e. , "act at any stage" and "determining the real questions in controversy". Therefore, there cannot be any embargo in ignoring the application only on account of the stage or stages of this proceedings. The guiding factor is determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The object of this rule is to enable the real questions in issue between the parties to be raised in the pleadings for the purpose of adjudication between the parties. It also prevents multiplicity of suits and shortens litigation. The rule permits amendment at any stage and it does not matter whether the original omission arose from negligence or carelessness, for the Court exists for the determination of the rights of the parties and for doing substantial justice to them and not for punishing them for either mistakes in the conduct of cases. The powers of amendment vested in Court under this rule are very wide. No injury will be caused to the respondent. The present suit is made for recovery of loss and damages suffered by it on account of breach of contract. The defendant by filing this written statement has taken various pleas. However, by making this application in effect the defendant wanted to be much categorical in respect of frustration by intrusion or occurrence of an unexpected event and/or supervening impossibility to act, such parts as intended to be incorporated by amendment are available under the red ink under paragraphs 1a (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v ). In opposing such application the plaintiff/respondent has basically taken a plea that the plea of frustration or impossibility was never before in the main written statement, therefore, those are new set of defences. Moreover, those contentions are mutually destructive if the original pleading and the proposed substituted pleadings in the written statement are taken together. In fact he relied upon a judgment reported in 1996 (11) SCC 690 (Srimony Gurdwara v. Jasyant Singh) where it has been held that it is settled law that the defendant can raise mutually in consistent pleading in the written statement but it is for the Court to consider whether the case can be properly considered in deciding the issue. In explaining the factual position the Supreme Court observed that in the first written statement they have denied the title. Therefore, they cannot set up a title in him and plead gift made in favour of the petitioner-committee. It was further held by the Supreme Court that there is no explanation given as to whey they come forward with this plea at the belated stage after the parties have adduced evidence and the matter was to be argued. Under the circumstances, there is no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference. So, if I interpret the judgment two things will come out, Firstly, title was denied and thereafter wanted to set up the title for the purpose of pleading in favour of gift. Secondly, such defence wanted to be taken by incorporation in the written statement when adducing of evidence are closed and the matter is directed to be argued. According to me, there is a justification of such refusal because, the stage in which the application was taken in the referred judgment can be said to be an afterthought. Moreover, actually both the statements are self-con