Short Note : 1. After the issues were framed, the case was filed for recording evidence on 13th November 1973 when the defendants moved an application for grant of leave to amend the written-statement (IA No. 6). By the proposed amendment, the defendants wanted to furnish particulars of the moneylending business carried on by the plaintiff The application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned trial Judge, by his impuged order, has rejected that application. Hence the defendants have filed this petition. Held : The defendants had, in the written-statement, resisted the claim of the plaintiff inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was carrying on moneylending business without obtaining any licence. By the proposed amendment, the defendants wanted to furnish particulars of the moneylending business carried on by on the plaintiff. The trial Court should have seen that the proposed amendment in the written-statement was necessary for the purpose of determining the question as to whether the plaintiff is or is not a money-lender, which is one of the questions in controversy. The trial Court, therefore, in rejecting the application for amendment, has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The impugned order passed by the trial Court, therefore, deserves to be interfered with under section 115 CPC. However, as the application for grant of leave to amend the written• statement (IA No.6) was submitted on the date when the case was fixed for recording evidence, the interests of justice would be served if the application is allowed subject to payment of Rs 100 as costs to the plaintiff. Revision allowed