The court has a wide discretion to allow amendments to pleadings under O. VI, R. 17, C. P. C., even if they introduce a new cause of action, provided that the amendment is not wholly foreign to the subject-matter of the suit and it would be in the interest of justice to grant it.

ORDER:- One Salih Sahib, whom I shall hereafter refer to as the plaintiff, filed a suit against one Adam Sahib, whom I shall call the defendant, in the District Munsif Court, Chingleput, in the following circumstances. The plaintiff is the owner of a piece of land bearing S. No. 21 of an extent of 4 acres and 60 cents in Panaiyur village, Madurantakam taluk. Hereafter I shall refer to this land as the suit land. The defendant owns the land bearing S. No. 20. This land lies immediately to the north of the suit land. A ridge had always separated and still separates, the two lands, S. No. 21 and S. No. 20. The plaintiff sued the defendant, complaining that on 2-7-1971, the defendant high-handedly trespassed on the ridge. According to the averment in the plaint the defendant's trespass consisted in simply reducing the width of the ridge. The original width of the ridge, it was stated, was 1½ ft. The complaint was that this was reduced by the defendant to ½ft. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to a ridge with a width of 1½ ft. The suit was accordingly filed for the grant of a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the ridge to its original condition with a width of 1½ ft. and for ancillary reliefs. The plaint contained a schedule describing the ridge.

2. The suit was filed on 4-7-1971. Subsequently, in I. A. 216 of 1973, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the learned District Munsif to go into the exact portion of the ridge. The Commissioner inspected the suit land, the defendant's land and the ridge lying in between. He procured the assistance of a qualified Surveyor for taking measurements. He filed more than one report before the court. In his second report, the Commissioner, inter alia, observed that there were indications of an alteration in the situation of the ridge from its original position.

3. On the basis of what the Commissioner stated in his report, the plaintiff filed I. A. 101 of 1974 under O. 6, R. 17, C. P. C. for permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint by adding one more prayer in the suit, namely, a prayer for possession of a strip of land of a width of 3 links and a length of 1728 links along the northern border of S. No. 21. Consequential amendments were also desired to be introduced in the schedule attached to the plaint.

4. The plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint was resisted by the defendant. It was pointed out that while the relief claimed in the suit as originally laid was for a mandatory injunction to restore the ridge to its original position, the proposed amendment introduced a claim for relief for recovery of possession of land over the entire length of the ridge, which was a wholly new claim. According to the defendant, the proposed amendment tended to change the very character of the suit by introducing a new cause of action and a new claim for relief.

5. The learned District Munsif upheld the defendant's objection and dismissed the plaintiff's application for amendment. The plaintiff now comes before this court in revision, and pleads that the learned District Munsif ought to have permitted the amendment, in the exercise of his discretion.

6. Order VI, C. P. C. deals with pleadings generally. Rule 17 of that Order defines the powers of the Court in the matter of amendment of pleadings. This rule easily falls into two distinct parts, in terms of language as well as of subject-matter. The rule, by its first limb, confers a discretion on the court to permit any party to a suit to amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as the court may deem just. The language of the rule, in this part, is that which the Legislature usually employs for conferring purely discretionary powers. The expression used is

"the court may........" The discretion as enacted in this part is, however, widely worded. The rule provides that amendment of the pleadings may be permitted by the court at any stage and in any manner that the court may deem just. In grant