Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be liberally construed, and amendments should be allowed if necessary to bring out the real controversy between the parties and for doing justice, unless it appears that the party was acting mala fide or that the amendment would cause injury to the other side which cannot be compensated by awarding costs.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Phukan, C. J.

1. The revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabarangpur, dated 29-1-1996 passed in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1994. By the impugned order, the plaintiff-appellants' application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule17 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. By the proposed amendment the plaintiffs wanted to amend the pleadings at the appellate stage to the effect that defendants 2 and 3 are not the sons of Gomudu Bhotra, but they are the sons of Somundh Bhotra, who is the son of Bansai Bhotra. The petition was dismissed on the ground that by the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs wanted to introduce a new story regarding the parentage of defendants 2 and 3. The learned lower appellate Court also held that the proposed amendment would cause serious prejudice to the other side.

3. Reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Bhubaneswar Patel Vs. Janak Patel and Others. In that case, the plaintiffs sought for a declaration on the strength of their purchase, but by the proposed amendment, claimed title by inheritance. There ore, it was held that the amendment would alter the very foundation of the claim and introduce a distinct and separate cause of action converting the suit into another of a totally different character necessitating a fresh trial from the beginning. The Court also observed that the expediency of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings is no ground to allow such an amendment. The above ratio is not applicable to the case in hand, because the plaintiffs are not praying for amendment of the prayer for decree. They only want to make the facts clear.

4. Another decision of this Court in Sakhi Dei v. Banamali Sahu : 81 (1996) CLT 119, was placed before me. In that case, the amendment was sought for after passing of the preliminary decree in respect of schedule of properties which was allowed. The Court held that the amendment was necessary for the purpose of determining the real question raised by parties or pending in such proceeding. According to the learned Judge, the object is to minimise litigation and avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that rules of procedure are intended to be hand-maid of administration of justice. It was also held that a party cannot be refused justice merely because of some mistake, negligence or inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure and that prayer to amend pleadings has to be liberally accepted unless the Court is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that mistake has caused injury to his opponent, which cannot be compensated by an order of cost. The learned Judge relied on the decision of the apex Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon, .

I am in respectful agreement with the above ratio which squarely covers the case in hand.

5. Attention of the Court was also drawn to a decision of the apex Court in Akshaya Restaurant Vs. P. Anjanappa and Another. In that case, there was an averment in the plaint taking a definite stand that the defendant had entered into an agreement for sale of the suit land with the plaintiff. An application for amendment was made seeking to modify the averment to the effect that the defendant had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for development of the suit land. The Court held that the order allowing the application was not illegal.

6. Situated thus, law is well-settled that Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is a procedural law, has to be liberally construed. In other words, amendment should he allowed if it is necessary to bring out the real controversy between the parties and for doing justice unless it appears that the party was acting mala fide or that the amendment, if allowed, would cause injury to the other side which cannot be compensated by awarding costs.

7. I have perused the pleadings as well as the proposed amendment and the impugned order. I am of the definite view