JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division recommending that the revision filed by Srimati Dharma against the order dated September 25, 1970 passed by the Judicial Officer II, District Bara Bank in Case No. 45/45/80/164 under Section 220-B/209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Opposite party No. 1, Aharwa Din had filed a suit under Sections. 229-B/209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the revisionist Srimati Dharma and certain others on September 1, 1965. On October 7, 1965 he applied for permission to amend the plaint from one under Sections 229-B/209 to one under Section 209 only. Ram Dhiraj and Sunder who were shown as defendants No. 2 and 3 in the original plaint were also sought to be deleted. The amendments were permitted by the trial court. The contesting defendant Srimati Dharma filed her written statement on December 7, 1965. The case had a checkered history. A revision was first filed by one Beni Madho and subsequently another by Srimati Dharma. According to the record, the revision filed by Srimati Dharma was dismissed by the Board on January 6, 1969 and thereafter the case went back to the trial court where on May 16, 1970 Smt. Dharma submitted an application for amending her written statement by adding an additional Paragraph 14-A. The trial court by its order dated September 25, 1970 has rejected the prayer for amendment in the written statement. Against this order Srimati Dharma has come in revision. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the amendment sought was very essential for the purpose of adjudication of the case and the trial court acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the same without any good reason. The learned counsel has also contended that the trial court has erred in holding that the facts proposed to be brought on record by the amendment were not omitted by a slip and oversight. 5. The learned counsel has also contended that the trial court has erred in holding that the facts proposed to be brought on record by the amendment were not omitted by a slip and oversight. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff Aharwadin who claimed to be the Sirdar of the land in dispute admitted that the defendant Srimati Dharma was his brother's wife and that in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate held by his order dated April 30, 1963 that she was in possession of the land in dispute and since them she had been in possession. Srimati Dharma had, on the other hand, stated in her original written statement that from the very beginning she and her husband had been in possession of the land in dispute and they were the Sirdars of this land. Thus, whereas the plaintiff had alleged that her possession was only after the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. on April 30, 1963, her case was of possession from a very long duration. This possession from a long duration was clearly stated by the defendant-revisionist is paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the written statement. In the additional paragraph 14-A which he wanted to introduce, no new case was being introduced. It was stated that the house of the defendant was constructed over a large portion of the land in dispute because of which sufficient portion of the land had become Abadi. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to Mohit and Dharma Raj v. Ram Asre, 1971 R.D. 444, in which a learned Member of this Court has cited the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in their decision on Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 S.C. 1267 : Civil Appeal No. 697 of 1966. These observations may be reproduced here: "A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or 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 has caused injury to his opponent, which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. 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 has caused injury to his opponent, which may not be compensated 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 can be made without injustice to the other side. The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitation." 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party has, on the other hand, referred to Hirday Narain v. Bhagwati Prasad, 1954 R.D. 79 in which the Board of Revenue has observed as follows: "It is correct that Order VI, rule 17 gives very wide powers of permitting the amendment of pleadings but these powers must be exercised in accordance with judicial discretion and certain settled principles. An amendment of the plaint may be allowed to enlarge the subject-matter of the claim but not to change it. However a change of subject-matter is not such a serious objection as change of the nature of the suit. There is a wide gulf between the causes of action for sole tenancy or of co-tenancy inasmuch as a case of sole tenancy can be dismissed for want of possession but a case of co-tenancy cannot be dismissed for want of possession. Hence an amendment to change the claim of sole tenancy into co-tenancy changes the nature of suit and should not be allowed." 8. To my mind the proposed amendment did not change the subject-matter of the pleadings of the defendant. On the other hand, in accordance with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court his was a fit case it, which the trial court should have allowed the prayer for amendment. The trial court's order refusing the amendments amounts to violation of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The trial court, therefore, committed an illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 9. Disagreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order of the trial court. The trial court's order refusing the amendments amounts to violation of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The trial court, therefore, committed an illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 9. Disagreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order of the trial court. The trial court is directed to allow the proposed amendment to the written statement and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.