Rules of procedure are intended only to advance the cause of justice rather than to impede the same.
Interlocutory orders--Such orders can always be challenged in appeal when field against the final order.
Interlocutory orders--An appeal can be maintained after final decree has been passed by the Court, taking the ground of interlocutory order which has merged in final decree.

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against judgment dated 3.5.1985 of learned Single Judge passed in Regular First Appeal No. 1123 of 1976.

2. One Ganesha Dass had two sons Maya Dass and Devi Dass. Maya Dass renounced the world and became chela of one Narain Dass. However, he was owner of his ancestral land about 77 kanals in village Banga, 44 kanals 6 marlas of land in village Kajla and was muafidar of land measuring 42 kanals & 2 marlas at village Balla. Maya Dasss brother Devi Dass had five children, namely Charan Dass, Karam Dass, Biram Dass, Som Parkash and Gurbachan Dass. Maya Dass was issueless and during fag end of his life, it is stated that he adopted his brothers son Som Parkash as his chela.

3. The present dispute is between brothers who are nephews of Maya Dass regarding his estate.

4. It is stated in the suit that when Maya Dass intended to take Som Parkash as his disciple, this was disputed by other brothers of Som Parkash. In order to pacify, Maya Dass agreed to gift 60 kanals of land in village Banga in equal share to Karam Dass, Biram Dass, and Gurbachan Dass, brothers of Som Parkash and 40 kanals of land at village Kajla and Balla to Biram Dass and Gurbachan Dass and 12 kanals of land to Karam Dass, out of the land situated in villages Kajla and Balla. This was done by Maya Dass to avoid litigation. It was orally agreed that a gift deed to this effect would be executed on 13th day after Lohari in the year 1957. Since at the time of agreement as respondents were not possessed of sufficient money to defray expenses of the stamps and the registration of the gift deed, therefore, it was decided that the deed would be executed later on the 13th day of Lohari in the year, 1957.

5. Meanwhile, Maya Dass died before the gift deed could be executed. After his death, appellant being his Chela succeeded to the estate and Dera left by Maya Dass. Appellant also agreed to execute the gift deed as promised by his Guru Maya Dass and in this behalf executed a formal agreement dated 1.12.1957, Ex.P1. It was stipulated therein that the gift deed would be executed after the consolidation proceedings in village Banga were over and the mutation of inheritance in respect of the land in village Balla had been sanctioned. After the change of inheritance in the mutation records, appellant became reluctant to execute the gift deed. Respondents sent notice to the appellant in this behalf. The appellant sent a telegram in reply saying that he would execute the gift deed on 2.2.1963. It is the case of the respondents that the/reached the office of Sub Registrar on that day but the appellant did not turn up. In these circumstances, the respondents filed a suit stating that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and prayed for a decree for execution of gift deed by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 1.12.1957, Ex.P1 and in the alternative, for a declaration to the effect that the respondents were the owners of the land and also a decree for possession.

6. The suit was contested. Som Parkash appellant inter alia took the plea that after execution of the agreement dated 1.12.1957, Ex.P1, a fresh agreement dated 2.8.1962, Ex.D1 was executed and by virtue of that agreement, the earlier agreement stood rescinded and cancelled.

7. The sum and substance of the plea which was taken by the appellant in the written statement was that the suit which was instituted on the basis of Ex.P1, was not competent. A plea was also taken that agreement, Ex.P1 was without consideration and the respondents had obtained the appellants signatures under threat and undue influence. After the filing of the written statement, the respondents moved an application dated 29.8.1963 under Order VI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint so as to claim the relief on the basis of agreement Ex.D1 which was pleaded by the appellant in his written s