JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - These are two references made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow recommending that the revision Nos. 99 and 100 filed by Raghunath against the order dated July 25, 1973 passed by Revenue Officer in two cases Nos. 358/2/18/268 and 341/27/3/359 under Sections 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Opposite parties, Ram Dass and Raja Ram, had filed two suits under Section 229-B/209 Z.A. and L.R. Act. Raghunath filed written statement on February 16, 1971. Issues were framed on a number of dates and the last issue was framed on June 27, 1973. On June 28, 1973 the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint. This amendment has been opposed by the defendants Raghunath and others. The trial court after hearing the arguments of both the parties has allowed the amendment on payment of costs. This order has been challenged by Raghunath and Iswari defendants. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are firstly that the trial court erred in passing the order which was no order in the eye of law; secondly that the trial court erred in not holding that the application for amendment was not a bona fide one; thirdly that the trial court erred in passing an order which was illegal and which amounted to material irregularity; fourthly that the trial court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order; and lastly that the trial court erred in passing the order which is against the law and facts of the case. 5. None of the grounds have any force. It is futile to say that the trial court had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment application. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. provides as follows:- "Amendment of pleadings: 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 question is controversy between the parties." Thus this rule empowers the court to allow the amendment at any stage of the proceedings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Further the Additional Commissioner has found that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. The learned Addl. Commissioner has further rightly held that the proposed amendment is in good faith and does not prejudice any party in any manner. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party in support of the order of the trial court has invited my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 96 in which it has been held that 'Where however, the amendment does not constitute the additional of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts merely to a different or additional approach to the same facts the amendment is to be allowed even after expiry of the statutory period of limitation.' Another decision cited to this affect is 1977 R.D. 56. 7. Agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner I hereby dismiss the revision. 8. This order will govern Ref. Nos. 33 and 34 of 1975-76/Unnao.