M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. The question that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision is as to whether plaintiff can be allowed at the appellate stage to amend the relief portion of the plaint.

2. The plaintiff petitioner filed Title Suit No. 58/97 in the Court of Sub- Judge, Hazaribagh for declaration of title for possession of the suit land and in the alternative for recovery of possession and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from creating any disturbances or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

3. The brief facts of the case is that defendant No. 2 acquired the suit property by inheritance and became absolute owner of the same. In 1992 it is alleged that defendant No. 1 got the sale deed registered in his favour without paying any consideration amount to defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 inspite of the aforesaid sale made by registered deed dated 17.3.1992 did not came in possession. The defendant No. 2 thereafter executed a registered deed of cancellation on 11.2.1993 canceling the aforesaid registered deed dated 17.3.1992. Thereafter defendant No. 2 sold the said land in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of registered of sale dated 22.9.1993 on payment of full consideration amount. The plaintiffs further case is that after the said purchase he got his name mutated in the revenue records and have been paying rent to the State of Bihar. In 1997 a proceeding in Section 144, Cr PC with respect, to said land was initiated at the instance of defendant No. 1 and the same was made absolute against him but he still continued creating disturbances. Hence the suit. It appears from the judgment passed by the trial Court that summons were duly served upon both the defendants who did not con test the suit by filing written statement. The suit was therefore virtually proceeded ex- party against the defendants. The trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on technical ground that the plaintiff did not seek a relief for setting aside the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1. The trial Court held that in absence of a relief for setting aside the first sale deed the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in respect of the suit land.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court the plaintiff petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hazaribagh being title appeal No. 7/99. In the said appeal an application was filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint by inserting a relief that the sale deed dated 17.3.1992 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is null and void and mere a paper transaction, without consideration, not acted upon and is not binding upon the plaintiff. The appellate Court refused to allow the prayer on the ground that the said prayer was made after three years from the date of institution of the suit and therefore, the same is not maintainable.

5. I have heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Om Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2. No counsel appears on behalf of the other opposite parties.

6. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the appellate Court, it appears that the Court has not correctly appreciated the law with regard to amendment of the pleading. The general rule is that leave to amend the pleading ought to be granted unless the party applying is acting mala fide or by his blunder had done some injuries to his opponent which may not be compensated by an award of costs. Whether the original omission arose from negligence, carelessness or accidental error, the defect may be allowed to be rectified if no injuries is done to the other side.

7. As noticed above, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has committed a legal and vital mistake by not seeking a relief in the plaint to set aside the effect and force of the first sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 1.

8. At this stage I must ref