The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice, in line with the purpose of minimizing litigation and deciding the real controversy once for all.

These two civil misc. applications bearing Nos. 49 of 2001 and 51 of 2001 are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

2. The plaintiff-respondent in both the applications filed a suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against the respondents-petitioner. Now the stage of the suit is at the second appeal stage. Originally the suit was decreed and in decree came in appeal and in second the appeal suit was remanded. The suit was again decreed after remand. Against the decree both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed appeals and both the appeals were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Now the defendants have filed two second appeals which have been registered as R.S. A. No. 15/2000 and R.S. A. No. 16/ 2000. In the midst of hearing of the aforesaid two appeals which arose out of the same original decree, the plaintiff-petitioner herein has filed two separate applications praying for the same relief i.e. amendment of the plaint.

3. The proposed amendment is in respect of schedule of the suit land appended to the plaint. The proposed amendment is reproduced below:-

"At the last page of the plaint in Schedule-A after the words Agartala Sheet No. 6, the words "khatian 4712" the deleted and substituted by "C.S. Khatian No. 1837", C.S. Plot No. 4712 measuring 144 acres."

4. According to Mr A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs the amendment sought for is only correction of some words and figures in order to give correct description of the suit land and as such even at the stage of second appeal the amendment may be allowed.

5. Mr A.M. Lodh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants has vehemently submitted that the amendment has been sought at the last stage of hearing (part heard) in this second appeal stage. The learned counsel has further submitted that the amendment sought for, if allowed will review a cause which has been barred by limitation and further that amendment should not ordinarily be allowed to fill up lacuna appearing in the case of the party.

6. Law relating to the stage at which amendment of pleading may be allowed has been clearly settled on a number of decisions right from the days of Privy Council. So, the fact that amendment sought for at the second appellate stage is not per se a ground for rejecting the same. Generally amendment may be allowed if the Court is of the opinion that it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The dominant purpose of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. is to minimise litigation so that real controversy may be decided once for all. Though it is true that if a plaintiff seeks to alter the cause of action and introduce indirectly, through an amendment of his pleadings, an entirely new or inconsistent cause of action, amounting virtually to the substitution of a new plaint or a new cause of action, the Court may refuse amendment sought for, if it amounts to depriving the party against whom-the suit is pending of any right which may have accrued in its favour due to lapse of time. Again due to amendment an entirely new and different cause of action should not be permitted to be brought in so that it may cause multifarious or mis-joinder of cause of action in the suit.

7. In our present case, according to Mr Lodh, the learned senior counsel amendment sought for bringing a. new cause of action which has been barred by lapse of time, has no substance. I say so as the amendment sought for is in the nature of furnishing fuller and better particulars regarding the description of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs-respondents there was a mistake in quoting the khatian number and CS plot number. Hence the amendment has become necessary. As the law of pleadings regarding suit relating to immovable property mandates that suit property should be properly defined by giving survey number etc. if there be any for o