Judgment :- 1. Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 218/83 of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. He filed I.A. 546 of 1986 to amend the plaint. The petition was dismissed by the learned Munsiff holding that the petition has been filed with a view to protract the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that amendment of the pleadings is really necessary for resolving the controversy between the parties and merely on account of delay the learned Munsiff ought not to have dismissed the petition. The plaint schedule property as per the present description measures only approximately 8 cents. Commissioner inspected the property and found that the extent of the property in dispute is 14.630 cents. Petitioner wants the extent of the property to be shown as 18 cents in the plaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on A.I.R. 1974 P & H 247 contended that as there is no bonafides in seeking the amendment the court below was justified in dismissing the petition. He also relied on A.I.R. 1977 H.P. 51 and contended that amendment application with ulterior motive to prolong the litigation cannot be allowed. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that merely because there has been delay in filing the petition, bonafides of the plaintiff (revision petitioner) cannot be doubted. He also contended that petitioner does not have any ulterior motive to prolong the proceedings as be would not gain thereby in any manner. Counsel submitted that petitioner has claimed damages also in the suit and therefore it is not at all likely that he would adopt dilly-dallying tactics. 4. It is true that the commissioner showed the extent of the disputed property as 14.630 cents. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed objections to the commission report and therefore at this stage it cannot be said that the extent mentioned in the commission report represents the true state of facts. 5. The technical rules governing the framing of pleadings are not intended to deprive a litigant of his remedies but to serve the ends of justice. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the court can allow it if it is made out that no injustice is caused to the other side. It is no doubt true that the amendment petition has been filed at a belated stage. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the court can allow it if it is made out that no injustice is caused to the other side. It is no doubt true that the amendment petition has been filed at a belated stage. As the rules of procedure have no other aim than advancing substantial justice the court need not have to make a roving enquiry into the merits of the amendment petition. If the amendment is necessary to decide the real issues between the parties it should be granted even though the plaintiff or the defendant who seeks the amendment will not be able to establish the facts necessary to support the amendment petition. Amendment of the plaint can be allowed when it is necessary for adjudicating the controversy and when the defendant is not taken by surprise. At the stage when amendment petition is considered it is not for the court to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations. Amendment of the plaint often becomes necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is true that an entirely new case cannot be set up by amendment of the pleadings. 6. The amendment sought in the case is only to substitute the description of the property. As the petitioner wants to correct the extent of the plaint property it is difficult to hold that the very nature of the suit and the relief prayed for would also undergo a change. In the above circumstances, I find that the amendment petition ought to have been allowed by the court below. 7. As the amendment petition has been filed belatedly it can only be allowed only on terms. I.A. 546/86 shall stand allowed on condition of the revision petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 250/- to the respondent's counsel on or before 10-7-1986. If the amount is not paid as ordered the petition shall stand dismissed. C.R.P. is disposed of as stated above. No order as to costs.