JUDGMENT K. Kishore, Member - This is a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, against the order of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, dated December 15, 1980, rejecting the amendment application, passed in case for auction and sale held on February 13, 1980 for recovery of the dues realisable as arrears of land revenue. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are the M/s. Poddar Industrial Corporation, Rae Bareli, was in arrears of land revenue. The outstanding dues could not be recovered from the corporation, therefore the immovable property of the Corporation was attached and put to auction on May 15, 1979. The highest bid of Rs. 1,15,000/- was offered and it was turned down by the Sale Officer, being inadequate. The property in question was again put to auction on June 28, 1979 and the highest bid of Rs. 1,22,000/- was offered. It was also turned down. The property was last put to auction on February 13, 1980. J.K. Mehrotra offered the highest bid for Rs. 1,00,000/- and the hammer fell in his favour. On February 18, 1980, the revisionist filed an objection against the auction in the court of the Collector, Rae Bareli, Another objection was filed in the Court of the Commissioner, Lucknow, on March 4, 1980. The Collector, Rae Bareli, vide his order dated April 28, 1980, confirmed the sale. On December 9, 1980, the revisionist moved an application before the Commissioner for amendment of the objection stating that proper parties should be arrayed. The Commissioner, Lucknow Division, vide his order dated December 18, 1980 rejected the amendment application but he conceded to the extent that the auction purchaser should be allowed to be impleaded as a party to the case. Thus, the present revision is directed against this order of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, which has come up for hearing. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and seen the record of the case. 4. The main thrust of the Revisionist is that the objection filed before the learned Commissioner under Section 173 of the Land Revenue Act should be allowed to be converted into an objection under Rule 285-I of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and certain pleadings should be added in the objection. These submissions were turned down by the learned Commissioner vide his impugned order dated Dec. 15, 1980. These submissions were turned down by the learned Commissioner vide his impugned order dated Dec. 15, 1980. The learned counsel for the O.Ps urged that the Revision was directed against an interlocutory order and was thus not maintainable. The learned counsel for the Revisionist drew my attention to order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. and Full Bench ruling of the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad, reported in A.L.J. 1968 p. 109. Order VI, R. 17 C.P.C. permits a court, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow either party to amend its pleadings in such manner and on such term 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. I have carefully perused the amendment proposed to be made by the Revisionist to his objection pending before the Commissioner in the impugned order itself. The Commissioner has not held that these amendments are irrelevant. On the other hand the amendments may sought to be made are essential for a just and proper disposal of the original objection filed on March 4, 1980. which would mean that the proposed amendments are fully covered by Order VI, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. which is applicable to these proceedings in view of Section 341 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, in this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be said to be an interlocutory order and the Full Bench ruling of the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad (A.L.J. 1968 page 109) which reads as under, will apply; "Order passed under Order VI, Rule 17 allowing or refusing to allow amendments is 'case decided' within the meaning of the expression in Section 115 C.P.C." The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.P. is, therefore, not valid and cannot be sustained. 5. The Revisionist requested the Commissioner to grant permission to change the representation/objection filed on March 4, 1980 under Section 173 of the Land Revenue Act into an objection under Rule 285-A of U.P.Z.A and Land Reforms Rules. This permission was also not granted on the score that both provisions of Law were identical. Sale proceedings in this case have been taken under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, and therefore, an application could only be made to the Commissioner on the ground of material irregularity etc. This permission was also not granted on the score that both provisions of Law were identical. Sale proceedings in this case have been taken under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, and therefore, an application could only be made to the Commissioner on the ground of material irregularity etc. under Rule 285-A. Even though the wordings of R. 285-I of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and Section 173 of U.P. Land Revenue Act are identical, where sale proceedings take place under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land ReformsRules, an objection should be filed under Rule 285-I and not under Section 173 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. Propriety demands that the objection should be allowed to acquire the cover the Rule 285-I. Its denial may lead to miscarriage of justice. Section 173 of U.P. Land Revenue Act would be applicable only in areas where U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is applicable. 6. Regarding amendments of pleadings, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. Contended that they were abinitio not admissible and not admissible at all after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 285-I or Section 173 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The date of sale was February 13, 1980 and Revisionist filed objection before the learned Commissioner on March 4, 1980. An application for making the amendments was moved on December 9, 1980, Clearly the application for amendment was not moved within 30 days from the date of the sale. Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. permits amendment of pleading at any stage of the proceedings', thus waiving aside all inhibitions of limitation. In this connection, the learned counsel for the Revisionist drew my attention to A.I.R. 1969 S.C. page 1267. It has been held therein:- "There is no rule that unless in an application of amendment of the plaint it is expressly averred that the error, omission or misdescription is due to a bona fide mistake, the Court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint. 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 limitations. XXX XX XXX XX Rules of proceedings are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. 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 limitations. XXX XX XXX XX Rules of proceedings are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertance 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 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." I am unable to attribute any mala-fides to the revisionist in seeking the amendment. On the other hand, their insertion in the objection pending before the learned commissioner is essential in the interest of justice. I would elaborate that by permitting these amendments the interest of the opposite parties would not be hurt in any way. Nor do these amendments result in setting up a new case or cause a substantive change in the pleadings made earlier. The point at issue is whether the sale was properly conducted or not. Thus, the proposed amendments to the pleadings must come on record in the interest of justice and the plaint must be deemed, on such amendment, to have been instituted on the date in which the original objection was filed. 7. Yet another prayer made by the Revisionist was the U.P. Financial Corporation be impleaded to the proceedings. I am firmly of the view that the Corporation is not a necessary party to the sale proceedings. After the issuance of the Recovery Certificate requesting the Collector to realise the amount due from the defaulter as arrears of Land Revenue it becomes the exclusive responsibility of the Collector to take further action on the Recovery Certificate on behalf of the Corporation. It is no where prescribed that the Collector shall conduct the sale proceedings against the defaulter in consultation with the creditor. It is no where prescribed that the Collector shall conduct the sale proceedings against the defaulter in consultation with the creditor. Rule 285-I of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules also does not grant any right to the creditor to appear before the Commissioner in the guise of an objection. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner on this prayer does not warrant any interference. 8. In view of the above discussions, I allow the revision, set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner dated December 15, 1980 and the case is remanded to the Commissioner with the direction that the proposed amendments should be allowed to be made accordingly.