Order 6 Rule 17 CPC allows for amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings in order to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. The expression "at any stage" in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is far more elastic than the stage contemplated in Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, which specifies in no uncertain terms as to at what stage it will be attracted.

( 1 ) THE opposite party had filed C. S. No. 88 of 1992 against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,97,112. 23 paise. In the plaint, it was alleged that the opposite party-plaintiff bank sanctioned an application dated 20/10/1984 of the defendant No. 1 and granted credit facility - Cash Credit (Pledge) of Rs. 4. 5 Lakhs and Cash Credit (Hyp) of Rs. 4 Lakhs on the terms and conditions as pleaded in the plaint against mortgage of the properties and execution of various documents mentioned in paragraph 5 and 7. The argument was over and the suit was fixed for order and judgment. At that stage the plaintiff filed an application for amendment on 30/08/1998 together with a prayer for deferring the delivery of the judgment till disposal of the application for amendment. The said application for deferring the date was allowed. The defendant thereafter, had filed an objection to the application for amendment. After considering the same, the application for amendment was allowed by an order dated 20/08/1999. It is this order against which the present civil revision has been filed.

( 2 ) ). Mr. V. P. Varshney, learned counsel for the revisionist contends that on the date when the matter was fixed for delivery of the judgment after the hearing is concluded, the Court has no alternative but to deliver the judgment and no application could be entertained on the said date. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993. He then contends that originally the suit was instituted in respect of recovery of money due with regard to two accounts mentioned in the plaint. By means of amendment two more accounts have been sought to be included within the scope and ambit of the suit. According to him, the recovery of the amount in respect of the said two accounts which were not originally included in the plaint had become time barred and thus a legal right has accrued by operation of law which cannot be taken away by amendment. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision in the case of T. L. Muddukrishana v. Smt. Lalitha Ramchandra Rao, (1997) 1 JT (SC) 540 : (AIR 1997 SC 772 ). He then contends that by reason of amendment, the nature and character of the suit has since been changed and that it had introduced a new cause of action. it has also purported to join altogether different cause of action which cannot be joined altogether and therefore by reason of such amendment, there has been a mis-joinder of cause of action. He also contends that the plaintiff was not diligent and was guilty of delay and laches and as such, the amendment could not have been allowed. In support of this contention Mr. Varshney had relied upon various decisions namely, Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh, 1996 (2) All WC 724 : (AIR 1996 SC 2358), Bashir Ahmad v. IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Basti, (1992) 1 All WC 154, Monika Banerjee v. Biswabikash Sengupta, AIR 1986 Calcutta 113 and Kumaraswami Gounder v. D. R. Nanjappa Gounder (dead) AIR 1978 Madras 285 (FB ). On these grounds, he contends that the order dated 20th August, 1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar cannot be sustained.

( 3 ) ). I have heard Mr. V. P. Varshney, learned counsel for the revisionist at length.

( 4 ) ). It appears from the plaint that the plaintiff bank had instituted a suit for recovery of certain amounts pursuant to loan sanctioned on the basis of the application dated 20/10/1984 of the defendant No. 1 by opening of two cash credit account of Cash Credit (Pledge) for Rs. 4. 50 lakhs and Cash Credit (Hyp.) of Rs. 4 lakhs. Though different account appears to have been opened but it was in respect of sanction of credit facilities pursuant to one application made by the defendant No. 1 on 20/10/1984. Thus even if there are two accounts but the same is in respect of one transaction arising out of the application dated 20/10/1984 of the defendant No. 1. Therefore, these two account