ORDER : This revision petition is directed against an order of Additional District Judge, Imphal, dated 18-7-1963, by which he refused to grant the application of the petitioner to add alternative plea in the written statement by amending it. 2. That the opposite party brought a suit being T.S. No. 114 of 1960 in the Court of Munsiff for the declaration of his title over the middle 1/3rd portion of the land under patta No. 90/378 1, W.T. and for eviction of the petitioner from the same on the footing that he purchased the said land from Thiyam Gourabidhu Singh and Thiyam Achou Singh by registered deed of sale dated 9-10-1957. 3. According to the plaintiff the two vendors were the full owners of the suit land. The petitioner contested the suit by stating that late Chandra Singh, the original owner of the suit land had two wives. Chandra Singh before his death apportioned the disputed land equally to his two wives. Accordingly the petitioner on the death of her mother was entitled to half the share in the disputed land as inherited from her mother as 2nd wife of Chandra Singh. 4. The trial Court disbelieved the story of the petitioner and decreed the suit. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff to the Court of District Judge, which is still pending. During its pendency, the petitioner on 24th May, 1963, filed an application for amending her written statement filed in the suit raising a defence to the effect that the petitioner has got a right of residence in the suit land which is her paternal property till her death according to Law and Custom prevalent among Manipur Hindus in Manipur which has the force of law. 5. The learned Additional District Judge refused to allow the amendment in question, because he thought that alternative plea not raised in the trial Court cannot be allowed to be set up on appeal. 6. The sole point that is now to be considered in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to set up an alternative plea on appeal not raised in the trial Court. 7. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Or. 6. The sole point that is now to be considered in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to set up an alternative plea on appeal not raised in the trial Court. 7. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Or. 6 Rule 17 all such amendments should be allowed as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 8. In the instant case through inadvertence and bona fide mistake the legal point was omitted in her statement. This legal point is very necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parries, therefore, it should be allowed. 9. In support of his argument he cited the case A. Veeraju v. V. Venkayya, AIR 1960 Andh Pra 222, wherein Chandra Reddy J. observed as follows : "The High Court sitting in appeal has ample power to make an amendment of the pleadings which are necessary for effective adjudication of the questions in issue. An appellate Court would normally decline to allow an amendment if a fresh suit is barred by limitation on the date of the application on the amended claim. But, that is only a circumstance to be regarded in exercise of the discretion and does not take away the power of the Court to do so if the interests of justice require it. A Court can allow an amendment even where its effect is to take away a right if the interests of justice require it. The only thing is that it should exercise circumspection in that regard. Where an amendment of the written statement sought at the stage of appeal did not deprive the plaintiff of any right nor was he taken by surprise, there could be no real objection to the granting of amendment." 10. There is merit in this contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that a written statement or a plaint could be amended at any stage, if there are sufficient grounds shown for the purpose. 11. In this case the learned Additional District Judge refused to allow the amendment in question, because he thought that the amendment of an alternative plea cannot be allowed to be set up on appeal when not raised in the trial Court. 12. This ground does not appear sound to me. 11. In this case the learned Additional District Judge refused to allow the amendment in question, because he thought that the amendment of an alternative plea cannot be allowed to be set up on appeal when not raised in the trial Court. 12. This ground does not appear sound to me. Under Or. 6 Rule 17 an amendment setting up an alternative case is no ground for refusing it. 13. In support of Sobandri Appa Rao v. Venkataramayya Rao, AIR 1927 Mad 212 wherein Krishna, J. observed as follows : "The fact that an amendment seeks to state a case in the alternative with the case already set out in the plaint is not a ground for disallowing it." 14. Besides that this is an important point of law that has not yet been decided by any Court in Manipur Territory and it will not be proper on my part to decide this important question of Hindu Law and Custom in the course of a revision petition of the type which I am now disposing of. Since it is an important question of law which arises in the petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge and since it is very important legal question the benefit of which the petitioner is entitled to take, it will be in the interest of parties that an opportunity should be afforded to both parties for that question being discussed and decided upon. 15. After a careful consideration of all aspects of the case, I consider that there is a substantial ground for allowing the petition for amendment of the written statement. I set aside the order of the learned Additional District judge and direct that the petition for amending the written statement by adding an alternative plea should be allowed. Since the petitioner is receiving an indulgence and that too at a very late stage in the course of the appeal, it will be but right and proper that the petitioner should be directed to pay Rs. 100/- to the respondent before amendment is received by the Court. The written statement will be filed within one month from the date of receipt of this order by the lower Court. No order as to costs in this petition. Order accordingly.