JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The lower appellate court having rejected the petitioner's application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint, the petitioner seeks to challenge that order in this Civil Revision petition. 2. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 48 of 1979 before the Munsif, Bhubaneswar against the opposite parties praying for permanently restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, to come upon the suit land. The gist of the case stated in the plaint was that one Ramachandra Badu and some others were sikimi tenants in respect of the suit land, which was described as plot No. 2480/4464 under sikimi Khata No. 14 in mouza Bhubaneswar, Dist. Puri having an area of Ac.0.518 decimals. While remaining in khas possession of the property, the said sikimi tenants alienated their interests in the suit property to defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5-opposite parties 3 to 5 for legal necessity and gave delivery of possession to the purchasers. Thereafter defendants 3 to 5 remained in possession of the suit property and paid cash rent to the ancestors of defendants 1 and 2 and thereafter to defendants 1 and 2. In 1962 settlement records, the names of defendant Nos. 3 to 5 (opposite parties 3 to 5) were recorded as sikimi raiyats. The plaintiff-petitioner claimed to be tenant under defendant Nos. 3 to 5 and asserted that he was in possession of the property in such capacity. An attempt was made by the superior landlord to oust the plaintiff from the property by setting up one Mahendra Mohapatra to file a case under section 36-A, O.L.R. Act. The said application was rejected by the Revenue Officer. Thereafter defendant Nos. 1 to 2 (opposite party nos. 1 and 2) threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. On these averments the plaintiff sought for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 not to create any disturbance in cultivation of the suit land and further to injunct the said defendants from coming upon the suit land. 3. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (opposite parties 1 and 2) the main contesting parties in the suit, denied the allegations made in the plaint in their written statement. They denied that Ramchandra Badu was ever a sikimi tenant under Damodar Mohapatra, their predecessor-in-interest. 3. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (opposite parties 1 and 2) the main contesting parties in the suit, denied the allegations made in the plaint in their written statement. They denied that Ramchandra Badu was ever a sikimi tenant under Damodar Mohapatra, their predecessor-in-interest. They also denied that Ramchandra Badu had any transferable interest in the suit property. They urged that the alienation by Ramchandra in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 5 was invalid. They denied possession of the suit property by defendants 3 to 5, or by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 and 2 asserted that they were sthitiban tenants of the suit land. In paragraph 14 of the written statement narrating the real facts of the case, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 stated inter alia, that the suit property was their ancestral property ; it was recorded in the name of Damodar Mohapatra ; Madhu Badu and Lokanath Badu were the sikimi tenants under the owners ; as sikimi right was neither heritable nor transferable, after the death of Lokanath Badu and Madhu Badu the land was resumed by the landlords and they took has possession. 4. The trial court on a consideration of the materials placed before it dismissed the suit holding inter alia, that the sikimi right was neither heritable nor transferable in the area and that the plaintiff failed to establish the relationship of Ramchandra Badu with Madhu Badu and Lokanath Badu. Referring the document under Ext. 3, the trial court observed that though the plaintiff depends on the averments in the said document to bring home the fact that Ramchandra Badu acquired sikimi interest over the suit plot through inheritance and transfer, the said fact was neither pleaded in the plaint nor specific oral evidence in this regard was adduced by the plaintiff. 5. The plaintiff-petitioner filed Title Appeal No. 15 of 1981 before the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar challenging the aforesaid decision of the trial court. During pendency of the appeal he filed two applications, one under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code to accept some documents by way of additional evidence and the other under Order 6 and 17, Civil Procedure Code seeking to amend the plaint. The proposed amendment as stated in the petition was to the following effect. Proposed amendment. During pendency of the appeal he filed two applications, one under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code to accept some documents by way of additional evidence and the other under Order 6 and 17, Civil Procedure Code seeking to amend the plaint. The proposed amendment as stated in the petition was to the following effect. Proposed amendment. After para-1 of the plaint, the following para to be added as para I-A. I.A. "That it may be clarified that late Ramchandra Badu was the son of late Madhu Badu and late Madhab Badu and Sidheswar Badu were the sons of late Lokanath Badu. Madhu Badu was sikimi tenant with respect to plot Nos. 634/3297 having an area of Ac.0.225 and plot No. 634/3298 having an area of Ac.0.290 of 1912 settlement. Similarly Lokanath Badu was also sikimi tenant with respect to plot Nos. 634 and 634/3296 having an area of Ac.0.290 and Ac.0.225 respectively of 1912 settlement. After death of Madhu and Lokanath their sons succeeded to the property as per custom and continued in possession respectively. Madhab Badu and Sidheswar Badu while continuing as sikimi tenant for their legal necessity said plot Nos. 634 and 634/3296 in favour of Ramachandra Badu vide registered deed No. 1090 dated 19-2-1915. Thereafter Ramchandra Badu became the exclusive owner in possession with respect to aforesaid plots. The above said four plot Nos. 634/3297 and 634 of 1912 settlement correspond to plot Nos. 2480/4464 of 1962 settlement and plot Nos. 634/3298 and 634/3296 of 1912 settlement correspond to plot Nos. 2480/4463 and 2480 respectively of 1962 settlement. Ram's possession was never disturbed." In their objection to the application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, the opposite parties 1 and 2 stated that the amendments sought were not necessary for determining the real question in controversy and the plaintiff having been aware of these facts had made no attempt to amend his plaint at earlier stage. On these grounds they prayed for rejection of the petition for amendment of the plaint. 6. The lower appellate court on consideration allowed the prayer for accepting some documents by way of additional evidence. The said order is not under challenge in this proceeding. The challenge in this revision petition is confined to the order of the lower appellate court rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint. 7. 6. The lower appellate court on consideration allowed the prayer for accepting some documents by way of additional evidence. The said order is not under challenge in this proceeding. The challenge in this revision petition is confined to the order of the lower appellate court rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint. 7. Sri N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him on irrelevant and erroneous considerations and thereby the impugned order is vitiated. Sri R.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, supports the order contending that it is passed on considerations which are relevant and germane to the matter. 8. The position is well settled that it is open to the appellate court to allow amendment of pleadings in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, if the well recognised principles in the matter of amendment of pleadings are satisfied in the case. Considering the question, the Supreme Court in the case of Ishwardas v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others AIR 1979 S.C. 551 , observed as follows :- "We are unable to see any substance in any of the submissions. The learned counsel appeared to argue on the assumption that a new plea could not be permitted at the appellate stage unless all the materials necessary to decide the plea was already before the Court. There is no legal basis for this assumption. There is no impediment or bar against an appellate Court permitting amendment of pleadings so as to enable a party to raise a new plea. All that is necessary is that the Appellate Court should observe the well known principles subject to which amendment's of pleadings are usually granted. Naturally one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted is the delay in making the application seeking such amendment and, if made at the appellate stage, the reason, why it was not sought in the trial court. If the necessary material on which the plea arising from the amendment may be decided is already there, the amendment may be more readily granted than otherwise. If the necessary material on which the plea arising from the amendment may be decided is already there, the amendment may be more readily granted than otherwise. But, there is no prohibition against an Appellate Court permitting an amendment at the appellate stage merely because the necessary material is not already before the Court." The question has also attracted the attention of different High Courts on several occasions. In the case of Laxminarayan alias L. Behera v. Tahebul Masjid (1978) 45 C.L.T. 141, B.K. Ray, J. allowing an amendment of the plaint in Second Appeal observed as follows :- "It is no doubt true that where the proposed amendment entirely changes the nature and character of a suit or introduces a fresh cause of action or being a belated one deprives a litigant of a valuable right which has accrued to him on account of lapse of time under the law of limitation, the same should not ordinarily be allowed. At the same time, it is also the settled law that where a proposed amendment has the effect of advancing the cause of justice instead of defeating it and does not cause prejudice to any party, Courts should not be reluctant on technical grounds to throw out the amendment to the pleadings where the proposed amendments have not the effect of changing the character and nature of the suit fundamentally and the case to be made out after the proposed amendments is not inconsistent with the case originally made in the plaint. Held, that the amendments be allowed." Patna High Court in the case of Janardan Yadab and others v. The Bihar State Suni Waqf Board, Patna and others AIR 1978 Patna 322, considering the question of amendment of pleadings at belated stage, held : "Where an amendment involves merely a different or additional approach to the case, it should be allowed." A division Bench of Punjab Court in the case of Surain Singh v. Swami Dhian Santosh Anandpuri and another AIR 1979 Punj. & Hary. 161, observed : "The law is well settled that an amendment which goes to the root of the matter and which requires necessary adjudication for proper assessment of the matter, may be allowed at any stage of the proceeding. An appeal being a continuation of the original proceedings an amendment can be allowed even during pendency of appeal." 9. 161, observed : "The law is well settled that an amendment which goes to the root of the matter and which requires necessary adjudication for proper assessment of the matter, may be allowed at any stage of the proceeding. An appeal being a continuation of the original proceedings an amendment can be allowed even during pendency of appeal." 9. Examining the present case in the light of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, a perusal of the proposed amendment shows that therein the petitioner wants to clarify that late Ramchandra Badu was the son of late Madhu Badu and late Madhab Badu and Sidheswar Badu were the sons of late Lokanath. Further, the petitioner seeks to explain that Madhu Badu was a sikimi tenant in respect of the sabik two plots and similarly Lokanath Badu was a sikimi tenants in respect of two plots of 1912 settlement and after the death of Madhu and Lokanath their sons succeeded to the property as per custom and while so continuing as sikimi tenants. Madhab Badu and Sidheswar Badu for their necessity sold the sabik two plots in favour of Ramchandra Badu by registered sale deed dated 19-2-1915. Thereafter, Ramchandra Badu became the exclusive owner in possession of the two sabik plots and those sabik plots correspond to suit plot of 1962 settlement. The petitioner filed the sale deed dated 19-2-1915, which, it is stated at the Bar, has been accepted by way of additional evidence by the appellants court. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the proposed amendments were classificatory in nature and this position appears to have been accepted by the appellate court. The ground stated in the impugned order for rejecting the prayer is that if the present amendment is allowed, plaintiff in the suit will be required to prove the relationship between Madhab and Sidheswar and also their right of sikimi tenancy over the two sabik plots of 1912-settlement. He is further to prove that the two sabik plots of 1912 settlement correspond to the suit plot of 1962 settlement by taking a Civil Court Commissioner for purpose of relay. At the moment, there is nothing before the Court to support the proposed amendment by any documentary evidence. To allow the amendment at this stage will moan reopening of the entire case of the parties, necessitating a fresh trial with fresh issues. 10. At the moment, there is nothing before the Court to support the proposed amendment by any documentary evidence. To allow the amendment at this stage will moan reopening of the entire case of the parties, necessitating a fresh trial with fresh issues. 10. From the above it is clear that the lower appellate court laboured under an impression that unless all the materials to establish the averments sought to be introduced by amendment are already on record and no further evidence is necessary to be taken in case the proposed amendment is allowed, then the prayer of amendment cannot be allowed by the appellate court. This impression was clearly erroneous in view of the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Iswardas v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1979 S.C. 551 (supra). Analysing the principles laid down in the decision referred to earlier, the main criteria to be applied are :- (a) Whether the amendment sought for is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the subject matter in the case ? (b) Whether the proposed amendment completely and fundamentally changes the nature and character of the stands taken by the party concerned or in other words puts up a completely new case ? (c) Whether by allowing the proposed amendment any right vested in other party by lapse of time is going to be materially affected ? (d) Whether the party concerned has been able to offer a reasonable explanation why the application for amendment could not be made before the trial court ? If answers to the question under (a) and (d) are in the affirmative and answers to (b) and (c) are in the negative, the application for amendment cannot be thrown out, merely because, allowing it would necessitate further evidence to be taken in the case. 11. In the present case, keeping in view the case of the petitioner stated in the plaint and the proposed amendment, it cannot be said that the amendments sought would bring about a fundamental change in the case of the plaintiff or that a totally new cause of action on a new set of facts is sought to be introduced. It cannot also be said and it has not been held by the lower appellate court that the amendments sought are unnecessary or irrelevant to the case. It cannot also be said and it has not been held by the lower appellate court that the amendments sought are unnecessary or irrelevant to the case. The petitioner has offered an explanation for not filing the application before the trial court, by stating that since he was a Bhag tenant under defendant Nos. 3 to 5, he had no knowledge about the relationship of late Ramchandra Badu with late Madhu Badu and Lokanath Badu. This explanation is quite probable and reasonable. The lower appellate court has also not rejected this explanation. Coming to the question of necessity for further evidence in case the petition for amendments allowed, as noticed earlier, the lower appellate court allowed the application of the petitioner and accepted 3 documents mentioned in the order as additional evidence. Acceptance of these documents at appellate stage may require further evidence to be taken. In these circumstances, the ground stated in the impugned order loses its force. 12. On the aforesaid analysis and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am constrained to hold that the lower appellate court committed an error of jurisdiction in rejecting the petition under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision is allowed, the impugned order is vacated and the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint is accepted. Both the parties will bear their respective costs of this proceeding. Final Result : Allowed