- (1.) THIS application in revision wrongly styled as second appeal has been filed against an order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 9. 11. 56 in proceedings relating to the amendment of plaint.
(2.) IT appears that in a suit between the parties instituted before the Assistant Collector, Sikar the plaintiff desired to amend the plaint but this application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that it was presented at a very late stare when the entire evidence of the parties had been recorded and further that it was likely to amend the whole case. The plaintiff went in appeal against the order before the learned Addl. Commissioner who however observed that an amendment could be allowed at any stage of the proceeding and that the learned trial court without applying its mind had erroneously held that it was likely to change the nature of the suit. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the case was sent back to the trial court with the direction to examine the proposed amendment and give its decision according to law. The defendants have now filed a second appeal before us which being incompetent under the provisions of sec. 225 (2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was at the request of the applicants heard as revision petition. IT was urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that the proposed amendment could not be allowed at a belated stage namely, when the parties had examined all their witnesses and the case was fixed for arguments and judgment by the court, as it was likely to prejudice the defence set up by the applicants. IT was also stated that the amendment if allowed shall introduce an entirely new matter and change the nature of the original suit' As against this the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that under O. 6, R. 17 C. P. C. a court can at any stage of the proceedings allow a party to alter or amend its pleadings in such manner and on such terms as to costs etc. as may be just and all amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real points in controversy between the parties. IT was contested that this rule makes it clear that a court has to exercise its judicial discretion to decide whether or not an amendment in the pleadings is essential to meet the ends of justice. We have carefully examined the provisions of O. 6, R. 17 C. P. C. This rule makes it clear that the amendment can be made at any stage of the proceedings It may thus be allowed before or at or after the trial, or before the final decree in the case or in appeal or in second appeal or in revision, provided of course it does not introduce a totally new case, or necessitates a fresh trial or the letting in of fresh evidence or will lead to needless complications. This principle was enunciated with a greater force in A. I. R. 1922 P. C. 299 wherein their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as follows : - "all rules of courts arc nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is therefore essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed, and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another nor to change by means of amendment the subject matter of the suit. " (Chitley's Commentry on C. P. C. page 1744, 5th 1950 edition ). In another case Cropper vs. Smith Bowen L. J. observed as follows : - "it is a well established principle that the object of courts is to decide the rights of, the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise then in accordance with their rights. I know of no kind of error or mistake which if not fraudulent or intended to over-reach, the court ought not to correct,' if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy and I do not regard such amendment as a matter of favour or grace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It seems to me that as soon as it appears that the way in which a party has framed his case will not lead to a decision of the real matter in controversy, it is as much a matter of right on his part to have it corrected, if it can be done without injustice, as anything else in the case is a matter of, right. (1888 L. 6 Ch. D. 700, 710-711) Chitley's Commentry in C. P. C. page 1738, ibid ). Applying these principles, to the facts of the present case, we find that before the date when the case was argued the plaintiff opposite party filed an application for making certain. amendments in the plaint. No order whatsoever was given on this application and the suit was dismissed on a preliminary point by the trial court. In the body of the judgment the trial court however made a cursory observation. "the counsel for the plaintiff gave no satisfactory replies to the contention and simply presented an application for permission to amend the plaint at this stage of arguments when both the parties have concluded their evidence. As the application for the desired amendment in the plaint, produced at such a late stage is meant to amend the whole case it is not at all admissible and so was rejected. " An order of this nature besides being premature is to say the least misconceived. The trial court should have heard the parties for and against this petition and assigned reasons for taking the above view in a judicial manner. The lower appellate court was therefore correct in holding that the application for amendment should not have been refused in this arbitrary manner by the trial court, without applying its mind whether such an amendment if allowed will introduce a totally new case to the prejudice of the defendant applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant frankly conceded that he could not successfully, assail the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner on any of the grounds mentioned in sec. 220 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Accordingly we dismiss this application and uphold the order given by the learned Addl. Commissioner and direct that the case should be sent back to the trial court for disposing of the plaintiff's application before him in accordance with law. .;