Amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally to avoid injustice, irreparable loss, and multiplicity of suits, provided that they do not introduce a new cause of action or substitute a new case in place of the original one.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against order No. 137 dated 26th April, 1995, passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd court, Burdwan, in Title Suit No. 98 of 1987, allowing the plaintiffs' application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure, for amendment of the plaint.

( 2 ) ONE Satya Prosanna Dikpati, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the substituted opposite parties, filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner No. 1 herein and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, inter alia, for permanent injunction to restrain the original defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs' right of user in respect of the passage described in Schedule "a" to the plaint and from being dispossessed therefrom upon declaration of the plaintiffs' right, title and interest therein and for other reliefs. The case made out in the plaint is that the original plaintiff and the defendants are residents of the same area and that the said plaintiff was the owner of the passage described in Schedule 'a' to the plaint and situated on the contiguous west of the residence of the plaintiff. That the said passage together with other properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's father and on his death his sons, including the plaintiff, and one daughter, inherited the said properties with the plaintiff inheriting a one-fourth share therein. The house properties were amicably partitioned by a registered deed dated 2nd February, 1982, and on the basis of the said deed of partition the plaintiff was allotted the property mentioned in Schedule 'a' of the plaint.

( 3 ) THE further case of the plaintiff was that the property described in schedule 'b' of the plaint belonged to the mother of the petitioner No. 1 herein and that since the partition was effected the plaintiff was exclusively using plot No. 8163 as a passage which lies to the contiguous south of the petitioners' house. That the petitioners herein tried to obstruct the said passage while raising their construction and became aggressive when asked by the plaintiff to remove such obstruction, resulting in the filing of the suit.

( 4 ) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Bidyut Banerjee submitted that the petitioners have entered appearance in the suit and is contesting the same by filing their written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint and asserting that the passage in question, comprising plot No. 8163 and described in Schedule 'a' of the plaint, has been described as a pathway in the C. S. Record of-Rights for use of the public at large and that the plaintiff did not have exclusive right therein. Various other objections were also taken in the written statement and it was denied that the defendants had encroached upon the suit passage in any manner, particularly in view of the plaintiff's own admission that the defendants have a right over a portion of the pathway measuring 4' ? 5'.

( 5 ) MR. Banerjee submitted that several applications were made by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, which were allowed by the learned court below by Order No. 45 dated 18th April, 1989, and the defendants were given liberty to file their additional written statement in view of such amendments. Mr. Banerjee submitted that after the defendants filed their additional written statement the plaintiff made yet another application for further amendment of the plaint whereby the plaintiff, inter alia, wanted to bring two other plots, namely plot Nos. 8161 and 8161/8320 within the ambit of the suit with a prayer for recovery of possession in respect thereof on the plea of events occurring subsequent to the filing of the suit upon asserting that the said lands, being sought to be incorporated in schedule A (2) of the plaint, along with plot No. 8163, described in Schedule A (1), are part and parcel of the plaintiff's land and that the defendants had encroached thereupon. Consequential amendments were