Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. This Civil Revision application is directed against an order dated 29-8-1986 rejecting petitioners petition dated 5-8-1986 seeking an amendment in regard to one of the items of properties described in Schedule-1 of the plaint. 2. The facts are short and simple. 3. The petitioner filed a suit for partition which was decreed. Even a final decree was also prepared which was put in execution. When the delivery of possession was going to be affected, the petitioner filed an application dated 5-8-1986 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (a copy of which has been attached as Annexure-1 to the civil Revision application) stating therein that in Schedule-1, 12 kathas 2 dhurs and khesra No. 742 be amended in place of area 12 kathas 5 dhurs and khesra No. 785, under Khata No. 29 of Mauza Kolhua on the grounds that the mistake could not be rectified earlier and it will be necessary in the interest of justice to do so. The court below has refused to allow the prayer on the ground that it would not in the interest of justice to correct the preliminary and final decrees when the litigation is pending at the execution stage. 4. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the fact of an apparent mistake not having been disputed by the opposite party either in the court below or before this Court, the amendment should have been allowed. 5. The learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite party on the other hand contends that proceedings in suit having been terminated, the amendment of the plaint and of the decrees was correctly disallowed. 6. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner merely wanted to reduce the area from 12 kathas 5 dhurs to 12 kathas 2 dhurs and change the plot number from 775 to 742 leaving the khata number and village intact in Schedule-1 of the plaint. 7. Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows:- The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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 questions in controversy between the parties. 8. 8. The question arises as to whether after passing, of the final decree whether the jurisdiction in, the court remains to allow such amendment or ceases with the disposal of the suit. 9. In my view the words "at any stage of the proceedings" is vide enough to include proceedings pending at the execution stage also. My view finds full support from a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ex-Service-men Enterprises Limited V/s. Sumey Singh reported in AIR 1976 Del 56 , wherein an amendment was allowed when the proceeding was pending at the execution stage holding as follows 2:- 22. The expression "at any stage" in its literal and actual. meaning means without limitation either in frequency of duration of length of time. It is not a restrictive expression. The general purpose and scope of a. statute where this, expression, is used may show that the expression has not a limited or controlled meaning. It is term giving the widest freedom to a court of law so that it may do justice to the parties in the case. 23. "At any stage" will include execution. Execution is a stage in the legal proceedings. It is a step in the judicial process. It marks a stage in litigation. It is a step in the ladder. In the journey of litigation there are various stages. Execution is one of them. It registers a degree of advance towards tie goal which the litigant has set out for himself. 24. Amendment for including the relief of possession can be allowed "on such terms as may be just". These words also point in the same direction. Justice was the dominant idea in mind of the Legislature at the time it was enacting the proviso. It knew, one would presume of the difficulties which a litigant might face by omitting a relief to which he may be entitled and which the section says he must ask for. The proviso says the court "shall" allow the amendment. The words are emphatic and imperative. It would also appear from another judgment of tins same learned Judge in the same case, but of a latter stage, reported in AIR 1976 Del 1981 it was observed as follows: 11. Since the relief of possession was not included in the original; plaint this was now sought to be added by way of amendment. The defendant opposed this application. Since the relief of possession was not included in the original; plaint this was now sought to be added by way of amendment. The defendant opposed this application. I allowed the amendment of the plaint on May 23, 1975, (Reported in AIR 1976 Delhi 56). 12. The defendant appealed to the Division Bench against my order dated May 23, 1975. The Division Bench by order dated July 23, 1975 said that apart from the fact that the impugned order was not appeal able. "We see no ground to interfere on merits". The appeal was dismissed at a preliminary hearing. I am in complete agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid case and hold that formal types of amendment, which may not require any detailed enquiry should be allowed in the interest of justice. No contrary decision has been cited at the bar by the learned Counsel for the opposite party. 10 Thus, I am of the view that the court below has acted illegally in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. 11. In my view there would be also a failure of justice if the said amendment is not allowed. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to allow the amendment, prayed for subject to payment of cost of Rs. 55 only which must be paid to the opposite party in the court below within 90 days from today. This revision is thus allowed but in the peculiar facts without costs.