ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THESE two civil revisions are directed against an order dated 27-9-1989 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara. He disposed of two applications by the said order, one of which was filed by the plaintiffs for amendment and the other filed by the defendants for abatement of the suit. Both the applications were rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge. ( 2 ) I shall first deal with the application for amendment. Petitioners in Civil Revision No. 975 of 1989 have filed the suit for a declaration that (a) the defendants have not acquired any right, title and interest in the suit property on the strength of the document dated 18-1-1990; and (b) for a decree to restrain the defendants permanently in interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The petitioners prayed for deletion of their prayer (a) and for substitution in its place a prayer to the effect that the document styled as deed of gift purported to have been executed by Osi Dei in favour of predecessor of defendant No. 1 is void, illegal, inoperative and liable to be set aside. Defendant No. 6 alone resisted the petition on the ground that the amendment would change the character of the suit and the proposed amendment was made after the period of limitation prescribed for setting aside a document. The plea found favour with the learned Subordinate Judge who refused the prayer for amendment. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment did not change the nature and character of the suit and therefore, the refusal was improper. The learned counsel for the defendants-opposite parties, however, submits that the petition having been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in refusing to accept the said prayer. ( 4 ) WHILE considering the question whether an amendment of pleading should be or should not be allowed, basic principles are that the prayer for amendment should not be disallowed because the plaintiff was negligent and the application was filed at a late stage; provided the amendment does not amount to injustice to other side. It is no doubt true that Courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. It is no doubt true that Courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the interest of justice. ( 5 ) FROM the recitals in the plaint, I find that the necessary averments that the defendants did not acquire any right, title and interest by virtue of the document dated 18-1-1980 were already there. The averments and, the relief both were in respect of the document in question. How by the amendment the plaintiffs seek invalidation of the document in question. On the existing prayer, originally the Court was also required to adjudicate whether the defendants have any right, title and interest over the suit property. Therefore, by the proposed amendment the nature and character of the suit would not be materially varied. In that background, the question of limitation in asking for setting aside the document loses significance. the refusal to accept the prayer for amendment was, therefore, not proper. However, the defendants have been inconvenienced because of the delayed approach and are entitled to costs for mitigation of the inconvenience. I quantify the amount at Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) which is to be paid by 20th of June, 1991. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, this order shall have no effect. Civil Revision No. 975 of 1989 is accordingly disposed of. ( 6 ) COMING to Civil Revision No. 15 of 1990, the defendants filed an application for a declaration that the suit abated because the dispute related to the nullification of a document on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document. The suit is also one for permanent injunction. Undisputedly a suit for permanent injunction does not abate if it is shown that the same was not pleaded an a comouflage to take away the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to deal with the matter. The suit is also one for permanent injunction. Undisputedly a suit for permanent injunction does not abate if it is shown that the same was not pleaded an a comouflage to take away the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to deal with the matter. As observed by me in Civil Revision No. 776 of 1987 (Fakira Senapati v. Smt. Bhagawati Sanapati) disposed of today where the prayer for nullification of a document on the ground that the same was void and inoperative and there is plea of misrepresentation as to the character and contents of the document, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The learned subordinate Judge was justified in holding that the suit did not abate. Civil Revision No. 15 of 1990 is, therefore, without any merit and is dismissed. No costs. Order accordingly.