JUDGMENT V. K Mebrotra, J.– Both these revisions under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are by Sri Ram Gopal and the sole respondent in both of them is Shri Shakti Chand, There is a piece of land situate in Sanjauli in District Shimla, The two co-owners thereof were Ram Gopal and his uncle Bhagat Ram. The total area of this land is four biswas, 2. On 7 February. 1983 Bhagat Ram sold his half share in the property, namely, land to an extent of two biswas through sale-deed of that date in favour of Shakti Chand. On the basis of the sale in his favour Shakti Cband obtained mutation in his name over the area of two biswas on 16 February, 1983. Ram Gopal objected to the mutation on various grounds and it was cancelled by an order dated 11 July, 1983. 3. On 11 August, 1983 Shakti Chand filed suit No. 195-1/83 impleading petitioner Ram Gopal and Bhagat Ram as defendants in it. The relief sought by him in the suit was that it be declared that the cancellation of mutation in his name was invalid and that the defendants be restrained from raising any construction over that part of the land which had been purchased by him. The further relief sought was that a decree for partition of the land, separating his area of two biswas, be granted to him. 4. Suit No. 2-1/86 was instituted by Ram Gopal and Bhagat Ram on 26 December, 1985 as plaintiffs and Shakti Chand was made the sole defendant therein. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit was that Bhagat Ram was a person of unsound mind and that Shakti Chand had secured the sale-deed dated 7 February, 1983 by practising fraud on him and without there being any consideration for the sale. 5. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial Court by an order made on 5 January, 1989, Parties led their evidence on consideration whereof the trial Judge disposed of the suits by a common judgment on 30 April, 1990 The suit of Shakti Chand was decreed. The suit filed by Ram Gopal and Bhagat Ram was dismissed. 5. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial Court by an order made on 5 January, 1989, Parties led their evidence on consideration whereof the trial Judge disposed of the suits by a common judgment on 30 April, 1990 The suit of Shakti Chand was decreed. The suit filed by Ram Gopal and Bhagat Ram was dismissed. The decree in the two suits was then assailed by Ram Gopal by filing Civil Appeal No. 63-S/13 of 1990 causing out of suit No. 195-1/83) and Civil Appeal No. 60-S/13 of 1990 (arising out of subsequent suit No. 2-1/86). It may be mentioned that before the decision in the suits Bhagat Ram died and his name was directed to be deleted, inasmuch as, his sole heir was Ram Gopal who was already a party in the suit. 6. During the pendency of appeals two applications under Order 6f Rule 17 CRC. were filed by Ram Gopal seeking amendment of the written statement in the suit in which he was a defendant and amedment of the plaint in the later suit instituted by him. In substance, what was sought to be added by way of a plea in both the suits by Ram Gopal was that he had preferential right to acquire the interest which was transferred by his uncle Bhagat Ram in favour of Shakti Chand by virtue of section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Based upon this plea, which was sought to be added at the appellate stage, relief was also sought to be amended by adding a further prayer, in the suit instituted by Ram Gopal himself, that a decree be passed in his favour that he was entitled to acquire the entire interest of Bhagat Ram in two biswas land sold in favour of Shakti Chand by him and that the sale-deed in favour of Shakti Chand be cancelled on that account also. Also, that he was willing to acquire that interest from Shakti Chand. 7. Both these applications were considered by the learned Addl. District Judge (I), Shimla, before whom the two civil appeals aforesaid are pending for disposal and dismissed by a common order dated 7 November, 1991. It is this order which is assailed by Ram Gopal in the two revision petitions. 8. Basically the view taken by the learned Addl. 7. Both these applications were considered by the learned Addl. District Judge (I), Shimla, before whom the two civil appeals aforesaid are pending for disposal and dismissed by a common order dated 7 November, 1991. It is this order which is assailed by Ram Gopal in the two revision petitions. 8. Basically the view taken by the learned Addl. District Judge is that Ram Gopal was seeking amendment after lapse of nearly seven years, long after his challenge to the validity of the sale-deed dated 7 February, 1983 bad failed, on the grounds on which it was made.Also, that any plea founded upon section 21 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had be come barred by time in view of Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as far as Ram Gopal was concerned. That was on account of the fact that the impugned sale-deed had been executed on 7 February, 1983 and the mutation, on the basis thereof, had been obtained by Shakti Chand on 16 February, 1983. The period of limitation for bringing a suit, as prescribed under Article 97, was one year from the aforesaid date. 9. Appearing for applicant Ram Gopal in both these revisions Shri K. D. Sood has urged with some emphasis that the courts should be liberal in their approach while considering a prayer for the amendment of the pleadings and that the fact that some plea had become barred by limitation was. by itself, not enough to refuse the prayer. Also, that Ram Gopal, was only seeking to assail the validity of the sale-deed on an additional ground and that the amendment would only imply a new approach to the challenge made by him to the sale-deed. 10. During the course of hearing of these revision petitions Shri ; K. D. Sood, when asked by the Court, made a statement that if the amendment prayed for was allowed Ram Gopal will only produce copies of some public documents and appear as a witness himself for connecting the pedigree mentioned therein and co evidence beyond it would be necessary in the case. 11. 11. Shri Bhupinder Gupta has appeared on behalf of Shakti Chand He has stressed the fact that permitting an amendment, as sought by Ram Gopal obviously would enable him to put forward a plea which was not open to him having regard to the frame of the suit and also enable him to raise a plea on which now a fresh suit has become time barred. 12. The principles which should be kept in mind by a court, while considering the prayer for amendment of pleadings, are not in doubt. To borrow from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others, AIR ?957 SC 363 the basic factors which should govern a prayer of this nature should be that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy two conditions ; (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties,,. and that there should be no alteration in the quality and quantity of the reliefs originally sought in the suit by permitting the amendment. In different words, the other party should not be taken by surprise nor should it have to meet a new claim set up after the expiry of the period of limitation. 13. It is not necessary to multiply authorities, for, the principles aforesaid have been accepted by the Privy Council and also by the Supreme Court in a string of decisions. 14. What has happened in the present case is that the sale made in favour of Shakti Chand was assailed on the ground that the vendor Bhagat Ram was a person of unsound mind and fraud had been practised upon him by Shakti Chand by getting the sale-deed executed in his favour and that too without consideration. Shakti Chand contested this case and parties went to trial on this plea The trial Court found in favour of Shakti Chand. The appellate court, before which the two appeals were filed by Ram Gopal, has yet to go into the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the trial Court. That it will do in the normal course. 15. The appellate court, before which the two appeals were filed by Ram Gopal, has yet to go into the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the trial Court. That it will do in the normal course. 15. A claim founded on section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could have been brought before the Court by Ram Gopal within a period of one year as contemplated by Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963 from the date of the sale-deed, namely, 7 February, 1983 or from the date on which mutation was effected in favour of Shakti Chand on the basis of that sale-deed. That period expired way back in the year 1984. The prayer for amendment was made in September, 1991. The claim founded upon section 22 was, obviously, not available to Ram Gopal by efflux of time. The additional ground of challenge to the validity of the sale on the basis of the provision contained in section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if permitted to be taken now, after the lapse of several years, if accepted by the court on its merits, may result in irreparable injury to Shakti Chand who has a decree in his favour from the trial Court. If the grounds which appealed to the trial court are upheld by the lower appellate court, Shakti Chand would not be deprived of the property which he had acquired from Bhagat Ram under the impugned sale. If. on the other hand, the findings recorded by the trial Judge are set aside by the lower appellate court and the decree passed in favour of Shakti Chand is consequentially set-aside, permitting a fresh ground of challenge to the sale-deed would be unnecessary. In either view of the matter, it would clearly be a case where the discretion to allow the so-called fresh ground of challenge to the validity of the sale deed does not deserve to be permitted. 16. An order permitting amendment of pleadings is in the discretion of the Court. Such a discretion is not normally interfered with even by the appellate court unless it is found that the discretion has been exercised unreasonably and contrary to judicial principles (See ; Hari Kishan and others v. Hoshiar Singh and others, FAO 11 of 1989, decided on 4 October, 1991). Such a discretion is not normally interfered with even by the appellate court unless it is found that the discretion has been exercised unreasonably and contrary to judicial principles (See ; Hari Kishan and others v. Hoshiar Singh and others, FAO 11 of 1989, decided on 4 October, 1991). Much less should the exercise of discretion be interfered with when this Court is examining a matter under section 115 GP.C unless it is found that the court below had committed some error of jurisdiction or procedure which had resulted in manifest injustice The present doss not appear to be a case of that category. The considerations which have been taken into account by the learned Addl. District Judge were germane to the problem examined by him and it is difficult to take the view, as canvassed by Shri K D Sood, that in the circumstances of the case no reasonable person would have taken the view which commended itself to the learned Addl. District Judge. 17. The applications in revision fail and are dismissed though parties ere left to bear their own costs. Revision dismissed.