JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad, Division, Faizabad recommending that the revisions petition against the order dated May 2, 1970 passed by the revenue Officer, Akbarpur, district Faizabad in Case No. 146/150 under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act be dismissed. 2. The opposite party, Srimati Ram Pati, had filed a suit for division of holding against the Ishwar Din. Parmeshwar Din, Ram Khelawan and the Gaon Sabha of Yduvanshpur. The defendants Ishwar Ding, Parmeshwari Din and Ram Kelawan had filed a joint written statement contesting the suit on Feb. 2, 1970. Subsequently on May 2, 1970 the moved an application for amendment the in written statement. The trail court by its impugned order dated May 2, 1970 refused the amendment on the ground that it will unnecessarily delay the case and will change the pleadings. The defendants thereupon have field the revision against this order. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the amendment sought to be made in the written statement would in no way change the nature of the pleadings, and the trial court has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity in refusing the prayer for amendment. He has referred to Manohar Lal v. N.B.M. Supply, Gurgaon A.I.R. 1969 (S.C.) 1267, in which a learned Bench of the Supreme court has laid down the following principle: "The order passed by the High Court, cannot be sustained. Rules of procedure and intended to be a handmade to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to this opponent which may not be compensed for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it ant be made without injustice to the other side. In Amulkchand Mewarm v. Banu Lal Kanalal 35 Bom. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it ant be made without injustice to the other side. In Amulkchand Mewarm v. Banu Lal Kanalal 35 Bom. L.R. 569, A.I.R. 1933 Bom 304, Beaumont C.J., in delivering the judgment of the Bombay High Court set to the principles applicable to cases like the present and observed: ".....the question whether there should be an amendment or not really turns upon whether the name in which the suit is brought is the name of a non-existent or whether it is merely a misdescription of existing person. If the former is the case, the suit is a nullity and no amendment can cure it. If the later is the case, prima facie, there ought to be amendment because the general rules, subject no doubt to certain exceptions, is that the court should always allow an amendment where any loss to the opposing party can be compensated for by costs." 4. The learned counsel has also cited Daya Ram v. Puranchand A.I.R. 1974 Punjab and Haryana 194, in the following observations have been made: " The Court can allow an amendment at any stage of the proceedings. Whether the original plea could not be taken up on account of the negligence of the counsel is a mare embellishment and does not, in any way, effect the merits of the controversy involved in deciding the application for amendment. It is common knowledge that legal pleas are hardly ever known to the litigants themselves, and it is usual for their legal advisers to take up such pleas on facts disclosed by their clients. The written statement stands on a different footing from a paint with regard to a new claim. A new claim cannot be raised in a plaint after limitation had stepped in. But this is not the position with regard to a written statement. Where no serious injustice is caused to the plaintiff by the additional plea being raised and such plea goes to the root of the case, it should be allowed awarding compensation to the plaintiff for unnecessary hearing caused by the amendment, otherwise, a claim which cannot be allowed by law would succeed so as to deprive the rightful owner of property of his fundamental right to own and possess it." 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has, on the other had referred to Rule 17 of order VI, C.P.C. which lays down that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The learned counsel's contention is that the amendments sought to be made were not necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy in this case which were, firstly, whether the plaintiff Srimati Ram Pati was the widow of deceased Misri Lal and, secondly, whether she had remarried. 6. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana certainly lay down the correct principle of law. In the present case I would not agree with the view of the learned Additional Commissioner that the proposed amendments would have changed the nature of the pleadings. On the other hand, I find that the amendments proposed are only clerical in nature and seek to make stand of the defendants clearer. The view of the learned Additional Commissioner that it was within the discretion of the court to allow the amendments or reject the same is also unsound in law. The wording of Rule 17, Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that it is mandatory for the court to allow such amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy. It is of course correct that the proposed amendment has resulted in great delay in the disposal of the case, but this delay has largely been caused by the trial court's refusal to accept the prayer for amendment thereby compelling the defendants to go up in revision and the disposal of the revision petition has taken a number of years. Thus, the delay has been caused more by the Court's action than by the defendants' action. The reason recorded by the trail court that the proposed amendment will change the pleadings is quite erroneous and shows that trail court has not applied its mind, to the original pleadings of the defendant and the proposed amendment. 7. Thus, the delay has been caused more by the Court's action than by the defendants' action. The reason recorded by the trail court that the proposed amendment will change the pleadings is quite erroneous and shows that trail court has not applied its mind, to the original pleadings of the defendant and the proposed amendment. 7. The result, therefore, it that I allow the revision, set aside the impugned order of the trial court, and direct that the trial court shall allow the amendment and thereafter proceed with the case.