Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.7.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Gonda (Opposite Party No. 1) whereby his application for amendment of the plaint at appellate stage has been rejected.

3. Facts of the case, in nut-shell, are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gonda in the year 1993, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 1036 of 1993, for restraining opposite party No. 2-Chandrika Singh from interfering in his peaceful possession over the property in dispute. Opposite Party No. 2-Chandrika Singh filed written statement on 28.1.1994 denying the allegations made in the plaint and alleged that he is in possession over the property in dispute. Accordingly, survey commission was issued by the Court below and the Survey Commissioner submitted his report which was confirmed subject to other evidence on record. Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.1.2006 (Annexure 4). Being aggrieved against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal, bearing Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2006 (Rajendra Prasad v. Chandrika Singh) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge, Gonda.

4. During pendency of appeal, appellant/petitioner felt that the plaint has to be amended as per report of the Survey Commissioner in order to settle the issue finally. It was also found that the sketch map attached at the foot of the plaint was not prepared on the basis of scale whereas Amin had prepared survey report and site plan on the basis of scale. In these backgrounds, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 24.4.2007, which was marked as K/27. Opposite Party No. 2-Chandrika Singh filed objection to the amendment application on 14.5.2007, alleging therein that the amendment in the plaint has been sought at a very belated stage and the same will alter the nature of the suit. It was also alleged that contradictory pleadings have been made in the proposed amendment.

5. The Court below after hearing the parties rejected the application for amendment by the order dated 7.7.2008, which is impugned in this petition.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner had not introduced any new fact in the amendment application and he had only to clarify the position already stated in the plaint but the Court below erred in not considering these facts and rejected the amendment application in a cursory and mechanical manner.

7. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel has contended that the Court should be liberal in allowing the amendment application at any stage of proceedings in the interest of justice and further the Court has to consider as to whether the amendment sought by the petitioner is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. In the instant case, the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the case nor any serious prejudice will be caused to other side. Thus, the Court below erred in rejecting the amendment application by means of the impugned order.

8. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the cases in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council, (2007)1 SCC 765; M.C. Agarwal HUF v. Sahara India and others, (2008) 5 SCC 642; Andhra Bank v. ABN AMRO Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 167; Prem Bakshi and others v. Dharam Dev and others, 2002 (2) SCC 2; Surender Kumr Sharma v. Makhan Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 626 and Rajendra Shanker Tripathi v. Ajay Kumar Gupta, 2011 (29) LCD 757.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party No. 2 (Chandrika Singh) has submitted that the impugned order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the Court below rejecting the ame