JUDGMENT 1. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 5.4.89 passed by the Additional District Judge Dausa, dismissing an application under Order f Rule 17 C P.C. for amendment of the plaint, tiled by the plaintiff-petitioners. 2. The petitioner filed a suit on 8.10.1985 alleging therein that Ramkaran Joshi had purchased some properties Benami in the name of defendant,No.1. Notices were issued to the defendants and written statement had been filed on behalf of the defendants. An application had also been filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 16.7.88, stating that in view of Benami Transactions (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988, no relief could have been granted to the petitioners and the suit should be dismissed, to which a reply had also been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs on 20th August, 1988. Thereafter, a detailed application for amendment had been filed by the petitioners on 4.2.1989 for amendment of several paras of the plaint, to which also a reply had been filed on behalf of the defendants. An application was also moved by the plaintiffs that their application filed tinder Order 6 Rule 17 C P.C. should be decided first before considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants. This application was also opposed by a written reply. However, the learned trial court after hearing the arguments on the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has dismissed the same by its order dated 5.4.1989 and it is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Dhanapal Chettiar and others v. Govindaraia Chetty and others (AIR 1961 Madras 262) wherein it has been held that it is permissible for the plaintiffs to set up as many roots of title as possible and sometimes, they may even he mutually conflicting and inconsistent. Amendment setting up an alternative rent of title to suit properties can therefore be allowed inasmuch as it cannot be said in such cases that the case set up by the plaintiff under the amendment was such a new case as would completely alter the structure and frame of the suit. 4. Amendment setting up an alternative rent of title to suit properties can therefore be allowed inasmuch as it cannot be said in such cases that the case set up by the plaintiff under the amendment was such a new case as would completely alter the structure and frame of the suit. 4. Reliance has also been placed on Nichalbhai Vallabh Bhai and others v. Jaswantlal Zinabhai and others ( AIR 1966 SC 997 ) wherein it has been held that the purpose of allowing amendment, to the plaint was to avoid multiplicity of suits and if the amendment is disallowed, the plaintiff would have to bring another suit. Their lordships of the Supreme Court have reiterated the principles laid down in an earlier decision in L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. ( AIR 1957 SC 357 ) . 5. Reliance has further been placed on Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K. C. Alexander and others ( AIR 1968 SC 1165 ) wherein it has been held that the suit must be tried on the original cause of action and appeal being continuation of the suit new pleas are not considered but there are certain exceptions. Sometimes it happens that the original relief claimed becomes inappropriate or the law changes affecting the tights of the parties. In such cases, courts may allow an amendment looking to the changed circumstances or a change in law, in order to avoid circuity of action. 6. Further reliance has been placed on Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh and others ( AIR 1972 P&H 260 ) wherein amendment was allowed because new plea sought to be raised is not destructive of the original plea and both the pleas could have been taken up in the suit originally in the alternative and because it has become necessary in view of the defence taken by the defendant. 7. My attention has also been drawn to Kalpana Choudhary and another v. Debi Dayal Choodhary and others (AIR 1977 Patna 198) wherein, amendment was allowed because of the development subsequent to the filing of the suit. 8. 7. My attention has also been drawn to Kalpana Choudhary and another v. Debi Dayal Choodhary and others (AIR 1977 Patna 198) wherein, amendment was allowed because of the development subsequent to the filing of the suit. 8. Reference has also been made to Ramavatar Gupta v. Manak Raj and another (AIR 1975 Rajasthan 186) , wherein a large number of authorities have been discussed and it has been observed that power of allowing amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is intended to shorten litigation and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The rules of procedure are intended to be a hand made of administration of justice. A party should not be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertance or even any fraction of the rules of procedure. The power of allowing amendment of the pleadings have to be exercised liberally unless such a permission cause prejudice to the other side or takes away any vested right which has accrued to the other side by elapse of time and in that case also since there was change in law which necessitated amendment, the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the judgment of the trial court refusing amendment. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance on Rudraraju Durgaraju and another v. Sagiraju Dadda Venkataraju and others ( AIR 1979 AP 14 ) , wherein also the court had observed that the power conferred upon the court to permit amendments of pleadings can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings The power is conferred with a view to securing the determination of real issues in controversy between the parties. The foundation for the civil proceedings is the cause of action. On account of the happening of certain events subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings, the changed or altered circumstances or events may give rise to different cause of action specially when relief sought for remain substantially the same. Even in that case also the court is empowered to exercise its discretion in such a way as to permit the amendment introducing if need be, a new cause of action also. These powers are conferred upon the court with a view to facilitating the shortening of otherwise avoidable prolonged litigation and otherwise avoidable multiplicity of proceedings and that is also needed in the interest of administration of justice. These powers are conferred upon the court with a view to facilitating the shortening of otherwise avoidable prolonged litigation and otherwise avoidable multiplicity of proceedings and that is also needed in the interest of administration of justice. In that case, amendment was allowed at the stage of second appeal, even though the cause of action had become different from the one found in the original suit, due to subsequent events, with a view to determine the real questions in controversy and being in the interest of justice . 10. Great reliance has been placed on a recent decision of the Allahabad high Court in Satish Chandra Saxena and others v. Krishna Prasad Saxena and another ( AIR 1989 All. 34 ) , wherein it has been hell that refusal to amend the plaint amounts to slopping trial of case which the party want, to set up but is precluded from leading evidence and revision against such an order is maintainable. It has further been held in that case that even if the amendment sought amounts to withdrawing of the admission, it can be allowed. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has also very vehemently submitted that the application for amendment is mala fide. It had been filed only with a view to meet the objection taken by the defendants in their application flied under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It has further been submitted that the pleas which are destructive to the earlier pleas cannot be allowed to he taken by way of amendment and since the new plea is totally inconsistent with the please taken in the original suit the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment and this Court sitting tea revision should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. He has placed reliance on the leading & basic authority in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Unsung ( AIR 1922 PC 249 ) , wherein it has been observed as under "All rules of Courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure to the proper administration of justice. He has placed reliance on the leading & basic authority in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Unsung ( AIR 1922 PC 249 ) , wherein it has been observed as under "All rules of Courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure to the proper administration of justice. and it is therefore essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that pus pose so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised but nontheless no power has been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change. by amendment, the subject matter of the suit." 12. He has drawn my attention to Brij Mohan v. Commissioner of I. T. (1974) R. L. W. 32) , in which amendment of the writ petition was refused because the grounds which the petitioner wanted to introduce by way of amendment were available to him at the time of filing the writ petition and the new grounds were inconsistent with the original grounds. 13. My attention has also been drawn to Bhubaneswar Patel v. Janak Patel and others (AIR 1976 Orissa 216) , wherein it has been observed as under:- "Where the plaintiffs sought for declaration on the strength of their purchase and by proposed amendment claimed title by inheritance, the amendment would after the very foundation of the claim and introduce a distinct and separate cause of action converting the suit into another of a totally different character necessitating a fresh trial from the beginning. Expediency of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings is no ground to allow such an amendment." In that case, amendment was not allowed because the facts which they wanted to introduce by way of amendment were already available to the plaintiffs at the time when the suit was filed. 14. Learned counsel for the non petitioners has also placed reliance on Angammal v. Muthupechiammal and anr. (AIR 1976 Madras 282) , wherein it has been observed that an amendment of the plaint seeking a relief not connected with the original prayer at all cannot be allowed. 14. Learned counsel for the non petitioners has also placed reliance on Angammal v. Muthupechiammal and anr. (AIR 1976 Madras 282) , wherein it has been observed that an amendment of the plaint seeking a relief not connected with the original prayer at all cannot be allowed. Thus, where the plaintiff sought for an easement of necessity and a consequential declaration therefore, an amendment seeking for a declaration that he is the owner of the property and for a consequential relief of mandatory injunction to demolish the wall on the disputed pathway cannot be allowed. 15. He has also drawn my attention to Kumaraswami Gounder and others v. D R. Nanjappa Gounder and others (AIR 1978 Madras 285) , wherein it has been held as under : "When the amendment sought for sets up a totally different cause of action which exfacie cannot stand on a line with the original pleading. courts cannot allow such application for amendment. A pleading could only be amended if it is to substantiate, elucidate and expand the pre-existing facts already contained in the original pleadings: but under the guise of an amendment a new cause and a case cannot he substituted and the courts cannot be asked to adjudicate the alternative case instead of the original case". 16. My attention has also been drawn to Anand Babu v. Seema Devi (1988(l) RLR 993) wherein, relying on Angammmal and Kumarswami Gounder's cases (supra). amendment was refused because introduction of relief about specific; performance of contract would change the very nature of the suit. 17. Great reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court as Durga Singh v. Mal Singh and others (1982 WLN (UC) 371) wherein amendment was refused because the amendment if all allowed would have changed the entire basis of the suit and introduced a new case displacing the original admissions and introducing inconsistent and new pleas. 18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the order of the trial court, pleadings of the parties as also the various authorities cited at the bar. The suit is at the initial stage written statement has already been filed and issues have yet t be struck. 18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the order of the trial court, pleadings of the parties as also the various authorities cited at the bar. The suit is at the initial stage written statement has already been filed and issues have yet t be struck. It is also it fact that the suit had been filed on 8 10 1985 and the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 had been promulgated after the filing of he suit. Therefore, the suit when it was filed was perfectly in accordance with law but for this Ordinance of 1988 no application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC could have been filed or maintainable. After the defendants had taken an objection that the suit is not maintainable in view of Ordinance of 1988 the plaintiffs moved this application for amendment in the plaint. Power of allowing amendment is intended to shorten litigation and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to do justice between the parties The power of allowing amendment of the pleadings should be exercised liberally more so when it has become necessary on account of subsequent events or passing of subsequent legislation. As has been field by the Supreme Court in (17) AIR 1 83 SC 462, an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away and therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment, an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. A party can even take inconsistent pleas in the pleadings. The petitioners could have taken all these pleas which they want now to take by way of amendment at the time when they filed the original suit and therefore, it will not he proper to shut him from amending his plaint. It will be of course open to the defendants to file fresh written statement and also take whatever objections they want to take with regard to the alternative pleas or the admission of the plaintiffs and the trial court will of course decide the matter in accordance with law. 19. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow this revision petition. 19. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow this revision petition. The revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 5 4.89 passed by the trial court is set aside and the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff-petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed. No costs. 20. Record of the case be sent back immediately to the lower court.Revision allowed. *******