JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member (J). - The Facts Are Mumtaz Gani's institute a law suit for a declaratory judgment in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer Rampur. The pleading has set forth a claim that they are bhumidhar tenants in possession of land in suit. The relief of declaration as such is prayed for. The title to land is suit resisted by defendant Idris Mohd's. Issues are formulated ; evidence admitted. On 13-3-1989 Assistant Collector First Class enters an order decreeing the suit. 2. Defendant Idris Mohammad's appeal. On 31-7-1989 Additional Commissioner enters an order setting aside decree of trial judge ; he orders remand as amendment in pleading is allowed along with the disposal of suit; depriving thereby plaintiff's a chance to refute the case set forth in amendment. Aggrieved plaintiff Mohd Gani Khan lodges an appeal. 3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The first appeal is not decided on merit because appellate judge is swayed by a consideration that defendant's amendment application dated 7-10-1998 was decided but unjustly on the day the verdict was pronounced thereby precluding plaintiff to set forth a case in rebuttal thereof. He explores this flaw in Paragraph 3 of his writ up in 53 lines. He finds the error fundamental. The application of amendment by defendant is ; that in Paragraph 25 of their written statement the words 'father of defendant; be written down instead of 'father of plaintiff', incorrectly brought in by oversight in pleading. This is allowed. 5. "It makes all the difference in the world whether one puts truth in the first place or in the second," said ? Coleridge. Is it apt to elevate an inconsequential amendment to first place ? Were not arguable points of substantive quality utterly primary ? How I would wish the appellate Judge were to aspire that responsibility is his 'to perfect, to improve, to alter when necessary but always to go forward. "He can enable plaintiff to amend in rebuttal. It beats me, not the court below, what he will in answer to correction of a clerical mistake. If a fault at all, at least a most venial one Yet appellate Judge condemns trial judge a sinner against nearly all commandments in his decalogue. "He can enable plaintiff to amend in rebuttal. It beats me, not the court below, what he will in answer to correction of a clerical mistake. If a fault at all, at least a most venial one Yet appellate Judge condemns trial judge a sinner against nearly all commandments in his decalogue. At what time amendment in pleading is allowed is not circumscribed by Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. However, what is sought to be amended bears an integral relation to the right of rebuttal. It makes for edification to state what amendment is." Le : is only correction of an incidental slip. Things being so "The fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves (Shakespeare, Julius Ceaser, 12), of all the things permissible under the Civil Procedure Code, the most detestable to me, me think to Legislature is remand of a cause when material evidence is sufficient to still the controversy. This is so much insisted upon in Order XLI, 24, C.P.C. 6. Still one more consideration is yet. The counsel for plaintiff files no objection to proposed amendment. He writes only on the margin of the objection to proposed amendment. He writes only on the margin of the application, in an unauthorised method, what is an attribution of motives ; delaying tactics and filing up the lacunae. Trial court orders that application shall be decided along with disposal of suit. Instead of moving the trial court to separately decide, defendants ledge a revision in Commissioner's. This is dismissed on 23-1-1989. I see several concerns which interrogate the denouement. The defendant's behaviour shows the inclination to complain rather than to strive in trial court. Was the revision fit enough for admission? A reasoned choice in admission is the secret of responsibility. This was not brought to bear in this case. Further, who in Commissioner's argued for remand ? The plaintiffs who are will not, as their suit is decreed. The defendant's will not as amendment had been allowed. The contention was surely pointless and barren. 7. Counsel for respondent had to say his say : the opportunity in rebuttal is imperative when an amendment is allowed. Me think Order XLI, Rule 33 C.P.C. empowers court of appeal to take care of this. And, then inability to decide first appeal on merits is disconcerting in fact and at law. 8. 7. Counsel for respondent had to say his say : the opportunity in rebuttal is imperative when an amendment is allowed. Me think Order XLI, Rule 33 C.P.C. empowers court of appeal to take care of this. And, then inability to decide first appeal on merits is disconcerting in fact and at law. 8. The appeal is allowed ; order of court below dated 31-7-1989 is set aside. The case is remanded back to Commissioner for re-determination on merits according to law.