Amendment of pleadings is permitted under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure. The object of the rule is that the Courts should get at and try the merits of the cases that come before them, and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it can be done without causing injustice to the other side.

Choudhuri, J—This is a revision petition filed by the Plaintiff Amolakchand against the order dated 28-9-1950 passed by the Additional District Judge, Wardha, in Civil Suit No. 16-A of 1949, allowing, an application filed by the Defendants 1 to 3 for leave to amend their written statement.

2. The Plaintiff brought a suit on 19-10-1949 against the Defendants for redemption of a mortgage dated 17-9-1936. The Defendants were served on 29-11-1949 and filed their written statement on 19-7-1950. In paras 6 and 15 of their written statement they admitted the Plaintiff s right for redemption provided the Plaintiff paid to them the sum of Rs. 17238-3-0 as the price of redemption in addition to all costs of the suit.

The Defendants filed an application for amendment of their written statement on 7-9-1950 by which they claimed ownership and exclusive title to the property in suit by denying the Plaintiff s right of redemption. They also proposed to amend their written statement by pleading want of notice and that the transaction in suit was not in the course of money-lending business. The application for amendment was opposed by the Plaintiff on. The ground that the proposed amendment displaces the admission made by them in para No. 15 of their written statement, and that it was wholly inconsistent with the previous statement-dated 19-7-1950.

3. The lower Court, though holding that the proposed amendment displaces the defense of the Defendants 1 to 3, allowed the amendment on payment of costs Rs. 100/- to the Plaintiff. It is against this order that the Plaintiff has come up in revision.

4. The Defendants in their application proposed to make the following amendments as para. 6 (A) after para 6 of their written statement:

These Defendants deny that they are moneylenders and have money-lending business in this Province. It is also denied that they hold a money-lender's licence. These Defendants further deny that they did not maintain accounts. It is submitted that the provisions of the C.P. Money-lenders Act do not at all apply to Defendants 1 to 4 and to the transaction in suit for reasons set forth hereinafter.

This prayer of the Defendants was not seriously opposed.

5. The Defendants also proposed further amendment by substituting para. 6 of their written statement by the following paragraph:

The Plaintiff has no right of redemption for reasons stated hereinafter. In the alternative, these Defendants submit that in case it is held that the mortgage sued upon is really a mortgage and not an out and out conveyance, the Plaintiff cannot redeem the same unless and until he pays the full mortgage money with interest and costs as given in the attached schedule A.

In paras. 7(A), 7(B) and 7(C) of their application for amendment, the Defendants have stated the circumstances in support of their prayer for amendment. They have also referred to certain letters which were discovered after the filing of the written statement which according to them disclose that the mortgage in suit was executed instead of a regular sale deed at the instance of the Plaintiff to avoid payment of consent money to the malguzar.

6. It was argued on behalf of the Applicant that it was not permissible to allow the amendment on the facts disclosed in the application when under Section 92, Evidence Act, evidence was not admissible to vary the terms of the mortgage Reliance was placed on-' Kamta Singh v. Chaturbhuj Singh, 1934 AIR(PC) 98 and-' Joseph Darmanin v. Carmel Micallef, 1946 AIR(PC) 50.

7. The improbability of the convincing nature of the new defence sought to be raised is not in itself a ground for refusing to allow an amendment of the written statement by the inclusion of such defence. In my opinion, this is not he (stage where the question of admissibility of the evidence to show the nature of the transaction should be gone into in considering whether the amendment in the written statement should be allowed or not.

8. It was next argued by the learned Counsel for th