Amendment of pleadings is allowed when it is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

A. K. PADHI, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs-petitioners challenge the order dated 17-8-1989 of the Sub-Judge, Cuttack passed in Title Suit No. 28 of 1984.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed for specific performance of contract which was numbered at Title Suit No. 28 of 1984. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the defendant admitted the execution of the agreement of the contract, but took the specific plea that the contract was subsequently rescinded. After the evidence was closed and the case was fixed for argument, the defendant filed an application to amend the written statement to insert the date of recision of the contract and also prayed for some other formal amendments. The learned trial court after considering the prayer for amendment, came to the conclusion that it is necessary for proper adjudication and shall not change the nature and character of the suit.

( 3 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioners submits that since the amendment which is sought for has been prayed only with the intention to fit with the evidence already adduced, such prayer should not be granted. The learned advocate further submits that at this belated stage the amendment of the written statement should not be granted and it shall also change the nature of the suit. For the above submission, the learned Advocate for the petitioners relies on the decisions reported in AIR 1967 Orissa 58 ( (1967) 33 Cut LT 65) (Khali v. Sadhaba Bewa), AIR 1953 Cal 15 : ( (1952) 89 Cal LJ 140) (Nrisingh Prasad Paul v. Steel Products Ltd.), AIR 1949 Ajmer 19 (Beni Pershad Bhargava v. Narayan Glass Works, Makhanpur), 1971 (2) C. W. R 1004 (Jhara Dasiani v. Magata Das), AIR 1950 Mad 32 : ( (1949) 2 MLJ 421), (Bhagavatula Gopalakrishnamurthi v. Dhulipalla Sreedhara Rao), AIR 1930 PC 57 (1) : (58 MLJ 7) (Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran ) and (1983) 55 Cut LT 219 (Hindustan Commercial Corporation, Cuttack v. Bank of Baroda, Cuttack.)

( 4 ) THE learned advocate for the opp. party submits that the amendment has been sought for, to make the averments in the written statement more explicit. In the original written statement the pleading was already there. It was pleaded that though an agreement for contract existed the same was rescinded by subsequent act of the parties. Only the date of the recision of the contract was not given in the original written statement which is sought to be introduced by way of amendment. The proposed amendment neither changes the nature and character of the suit nor it can be pleaded that it has been prayed for at a belated stage as the plaintiff has prayed for examination of witnesses and to exhibit documents. For the above submission, the learned advocate for the opp. party relies on the decisions reported in AIR 1989 Orissa 265 (S. M. M. Abdi v. Janaki Ballav Patnaik ), (1984) 58 Cut LT 287 (Mst. Satya Sahuani v. Chudamani Sahu), (1984) 58 Cut LT 295 (Puna Bewa v. Dinabandhu Mangaraj), AIR 1984 Orissa 64 (Rameshlal Santuka v. Sureshlal Santuka) and (1986) 62 Cut LT 634 (Atran Bibi v. Mst. Umma Kulsum ).

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs had also filed a petition under Order 18, Rules 17 and 17-A read with Section 151, C. P. C. praying to permit the plaintiffs to examine and to call Mahendra Kumar Meheta and Mr. J. Singh, Advocate to prove certain documents. Such prayer of the plaintiffs was rejected on the ground that since the plaintiffs had not taken the steps earlier for calling for the documents and for examination of the witnesses, the same cannot be allowed. The defendant also had prayed for recalling P. W. 1 for further cross-examination. The application of the plaintiffs for calling for the documents and to examine some witnesses and also the prayer of the defendant for calling P. W. 1 for cross-examination were rejected by the learned Sub-Judge on 26-8-1989.

( 6 ) BOTH the plaintiffs and defendant filed Civil Revisions Nos. 562 of 1989 and 718 of 1989 respectively and both the revisions were allowed on 24-10-1989 and the plaintiffs have been