Judgment :- 1. Defendants 1 and 2, who unsuccessfully opposed an application for amendment of the plaint in the lower court, are the petitioners before me. 2. The suit is for redemption of a mortgage and in the plaint, as originally filed, old survey numbers were given. In the application for amendment the corresponding R.S. numbers of the old survey numbers are sought to be included. A few additional old survey numbers and their corresponding R.S. numbers are also sought to be included by the amendment. The lower court has allowed both the prayers and hence the revision. 3. Regarding the first prayer of including the corresponding R.S. numbers of the old survey numbers already included in the schedule the learned advocate of the petitioners has no objection. His objection is against the inclusion of additional old survey numbers with their corresponding R.S. numbers. According to him, some of these survey numbers relate to extensive properties and if they are included in the schedule the effect will be to include new properties in the schedule which are not originally included. It may be noted in this connection that neither the names, nor the extents, nor the boundaries of the items are sought to be changed by the amendment. 4. It is well-known that the power of amending the pleadings is quite wide and all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: see the observations of Batchelor,J., in Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba (ILR. 33 Bom. 644) approvingly quoted by S.K. Das, J., in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil (AIR. 1957 SC. 363). In another case, L.J. Leach & Co. v. Messrs. Jardine Skinner & Co. (AIR. 1957 SC. 357), Venkatarama Ayyar, J., quotes with approval the observations of the Privy Council in Charan Das v. Amir Khan (47 I.A. 255: AIR. 1921 P.C. 50) to the effect that there is full power to make the amendment, and though such power should not as a rule be exercised where the effect is to take away from a defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, yet there are cases where such considerations are out-weighed by the special circumstances of the case. The aforesaid observations make it clear beyond doubt that the power of amendment is very wide and it might even extend, in appropriate cases, to the inclusion of a barred claim. The only two criteria regarding amendments are (1) whether the amendment would work injustice to the other side and (2) whether the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 5. In the case before me the suit is for redemption of a mortgage and the properties to be redeemed are the properties covered by the mortgage document and the court has to decide what those properties are. The mere inclusion of an additional survey number in the plaint will not change the situation and will not also affect the question to be decided in the suit. By the addition of new survey numbers the extents are not sought to be varied, the names are not sought to be changed, nor are the boundaries. Therefore, by the inclusion of these survey numbers no injustice or prejudice will be caused to the defendants and it may even be necessary for determining the real question in controversy. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed; but since the application for amendment was belated I do not pass any order regarding costs. Dismissed.