Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 12 of 1985 on the file of the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Guwahati is the revision petitioner herein. Plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment of the original defendant and for realisation of arrears of rent alleging landlord tenant relationship and under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. On the death of the original defendant, his legal representatives were brought on record. They filed written statements denying the tenancy and the title of the plaintiff. Plaintiff thereupon filed an application to amend the plaint alleging that defendants have become liable to be evicted due to forfeiture and claiming alternatively declaration of title and recovery of possession on the strength of title. The application was opposed by the defendants and dismissed by the trial Judge on the ground that the amendment, if allowed, will change the nature and character of the Suit completely and lead to possibility of arriving at contradictory decisions. This order is now challenged. 2. Rule 17 of Order 6, CPC, empowers the Court at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The Rule further states that all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The power of Court to allow amendment of pleadings is indeed wide. Courts generally allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and which will not work injustice to the other side. Amendment would be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated by cost. The provisions in Order 6 Rule 17, CPC, are intended to promote the ends of justice and not to defeat them. Courts are generally liberal in granting prayer for amendment as long as serious injustice and irreparable loss is not caused to the other side. See, Charan Das & others vs. Amir Khan & others, AIR 1921 PC 50; LJ Leach and Co. Courts are generally liberal in granting prayer for amendment as long as serious injustice and irreparable loss is not caused to the other side. See, Charan Das & others vs. Amir Khan & others, AIR 1921 PC 50; LJ Leach and Co. Ltd & another vs. M/s Jardiae Skinner & Co, AIR 1957 SC 357 ; Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgooda Patii & others, AIR 1957 SC 363 ; Jai Jai Ram Manohar La! vs. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267 ; M/s Ganesh Trading Co. vs. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484 ; Suraj Prakafh Bhasinvs Smti Raj Rani Bhasin & others, AIR 1981 SC 485 ; SP Sehgal vs.Smti Vidya Ktul, AIR 1990 Delhi 117; India? Oil, f^&aqi^LW. vs. Meer Ishfaque Hussaiu, (1990) 2 91$ 284 [1990 (2j GLJ 70} t&d^pir Sffifh Chetri vs;BC Modak & another, (1992) 2 GLR 256 [1992 (2) GLJ 241]. 3, Ordinarily the suit must be tried on the original cause of action. If however circumstances change they can form the subject of another proceeding. However, if the original claim becomes inappropriate or the law change affecting the rights of parties, Court may allow an amendment, pleading the changed circumstances as that will serve to shorten litigation and avoid multiplicity of actions and to do complete justice between the parties. See, Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. KC Alexander & others, AIR 1968 SC 1165 and Shikharchand Jain vs. Digambar Jain Praband Karini Sabha & others, AIR 1974 SC 1178 . 4. The suit as originally framed is one by a landlord against the tenant for eviction under a special statute alleging certain grounds for eviction. The defendants denied the lease as well as the title of the plaintiff. That would furnish the plaintiff cause of action to file a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title. What the plaintiff seeks to do is to claim such a relief alternatively in the suit already pending. This is done with a view to shorten litigation and avoid multiplicity of suits. It is true that the cause of action for the alternative relief is not identical to the cause of action for the suit as originally framed. 5. What the plaintiff seeks to do is to claim such a relief alternatively in the suit already pending. This is done with a view to shorten litigation and avoid multiplicity of suits. It is true that the cause of action for the alternative relief is not identical to the cause of action for the suit as originally framed. 5. Parties may under certain circumstances be allowed to seek alternative relief or rely on alternative ground for relief in the same suit as long as the opposite party is not put to serious prejudice or irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by cost. The power of the Court to allow amendment is no doubt wide; however the very width of the power requires that the discretion should be exercised on the basis of settled principles of law. The Court must always bear in mind two factors, namely, the wider" interests of justice and the prejudice which may be caused to the opposite party which cannot be compensated by cost. 6. Ordinarily one distinct cause of action cannot be allowed to be for another. But where subsequent events render the original relief inappropriate Court has power to permit a new relief to be added, though it is not fully consistent with the original relief, or the principle of avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. A suit for injunction can be-allowed to be converted into a suit for possession, or an alternative relief of possession can be allowed to be incorporated on the allegation of dispossession after suit. Ordinarily a decree in a suit must accord with the rights of parties as they stood on the date of the litigation, but if the relief sought has, by reason of subsequent circumstances been rendered inappropriate, or if it is necessary to mould the decree on the basis of the altered circumstances to shorten litigation or to-do complete justice between the parties, the Court ii entitled to take notice of Suck subsequent events. See, Akhil Ranjan Das Gupta vs. BN Biswas, AIR 1950 Calcutta 472; Amritlal tnritlal N.Shah vs.. Alla Annapurnamma, AIR 1959 AP 9 ; Kannan & others vs. Chirudu & others, AIR 1960 Kerala 93; Velammal & others vs. Chokkiah Gounder & others, AIR 1971 Madras 469; Bona Gope vs. Suraj Singh & others, AIR 1973 Patna 153; and Rudraraju Durgaraju & another vs. Sagiraju Dadda Venkatarajn & others, AIR 1979 AP 14 . Alla Annapurnamma, AIR 1959 AP 9 ; Kannan & others vs. Chirudu & others, AIR 1960 Kerala 93; Velammal & others vs. Chokkiah Gounder & others, AIR 1971 Madras 469; Bona Gope vs. Suraj Singh & others, AIR 1973 Patna 153; and Rudraraju Durgaraju & another vs. Sagiraju Dadda Venkatarajn & others, AIR 1979 AP 14 . 7. An identical situation came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir vs. Rambhujarat Kshampati, AIR 1983 Bombay 25. In that case the landlord filed a suit for eviction under the Rent Control Act and subsequently filed an application for amending the plaint alleging that tenant has denied his title and seeking relief on that ground. The plea of denial of title was raised by amending tbe written statement. The High Court allowed the amendment indicating that the amendment sought of the plaint was consequential in nature and should have been allowed by the trial Court. 8. There is no dispute that in view of the contentions raised in the written statement on the basis of denial of lease and denial of title, plaintiff could have filed a fresh suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title and at the same time he would have the liberty to pursue the first suit. If the two suits are pursued separately, there would be possibility of conflict of findings. Avoidance of multiplicity of suits is an important consideration which should weigh with the Court. The amendment sought for would also be necessary in order to settle the real controversy between the parties, namely, whether plaintiff is entitled to get back possession. If the amendment is allowed there 'would be no serious prejudice or irreparable injury to the defendants which cannot be compensated by cost. The lower Court has clearly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and the rejection of the amendment would occasion failure of justice. The order deserves to be reversed. 9. The revision petition would stand allowed, the application for amendment would stand allowed and the impugned order would stand set aside on the petitioner depositing in the trial Court a sum of Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred fifty) within a period of six weeks from today. If the deposit is not made within the time limit, the revision petition would stand dismissed, but without costs.