This revision petition is by the plaintiff against the order dated 26.10.92 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati in Title Suit No.66 of 1984. By the said order the petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying for amendment of the plaint was rejected. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession. In the suit the evidence was closed and at the time of argument the present petition was filed. From the impugned order, I find that the petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the plaintiff No.l wants to set up a totally inconsistent case by the amendment. It may ^ however be stated that in the impugned order the learned lower Court has quoted the paragraph 1 of the plaint as pointid out by Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been wrongly quoted inasmuch as the plaint was amended and the amended plaint was filed on 31.1.86 wherein the amendment was incorporated by which the alternative plea was made. 3. Heard Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and Mr. Das, learned counsel for the defendant/opposite party. 4. First contention of Mr.Das is regarding maintainability of this petition as according to learned counsel there was no illegality or irregularity for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection the learned counsel has placed reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in M/s DLF Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs. Sarup Shigh, AIR 1971 SC 2324 . I have perused the said judgment and in my opinion the facts of the present case do not attract the ratio laid down inasmuch as if the rejection of the prayer to amend the plaint was illegally made there will be an error in the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words such illegal rejection will amount to illegally refusing to exercise jurisdiction. Therefore, this point has no force. 5. The second contention of Mr. Das is that under Order 6 Rule 2 CPC in pleadings evidence need not be stated and according to learned counsel the proposed amendment namely insertion of new paragraph 6 A to 6 E if allowed will attract the mischief of above provision. Therefore, this point has no force. 5. The second contention of Mr. Das is that under Order 6 Rule 2 CPC in pleadings evidence need not be stated and according to learned counsel the proposed amendment namely insertion of new paragraph 6 A to 6 E if allowed will attract the mischief of above provision. I have perused the said paragraphs as the petition for amendment is available at Annexure A to the present petition and I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the opposite party Mr. Das in respect of above proposed insertion of paragraph 6 A to 6 E. Mr. Sarma, (earned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the plaintiff petitioner does not press insertion of these paragraphs. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr, Das in respect of proposed paragraph 6 F as in my opinion by this paragraph the plaintiff wants to plead plea of adverse possession in the alternative. Therefore, contention of Mr. Das is partly accepted, as stated above. 6. Relying on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jaldu Anantha Raghurama vs. Jaldu Bapanna Rao, AIR 1959 AP 448 Mr. Das has urged that the present amendment if allowed would be inconsistent with the original claim of the plaintiff. In the above decision the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that as a general rule, amendment of pleadings should be liberally granted to decide the real dispute between the parties, except when it occasions any injury to the opposite party and that all the rules or procedure are devised only in interest for proper administration of justice and they should be made to serve that end. According to Andhra Pradesh High Court the amendment claiming reliefs absolutely inconsistent with those in the original written statement would not come within the purview of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 7. In my opinion the above ratio is the settled law but is not applicable to the case in hand. In the case in hand the relief claimed is not proposed to be amended and what is sought to be incorporated is an alternative plea in respect of the claim of title of the plaintiff. 8. 7. In my opinion the above ratio is the settled law but is not applicable to the case in hand. In the case in hand the relief claimed is not proposed to be amended and what is sought to be incorporated is an alternative plea in respect of the claim of title of the plaintiff. 8. The law regarding amendment was recently considered by the Apex Court in Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi vs. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990) 1 SCC166, wherein it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions namely - (i) not working injustice to other side ; and (ii) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It was also held that amendment should 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 in cost. According to their Lordship where the plaintiff seeks to amend by setting up fresh claim in respect of cause of action, which since the institution of the suit had become barred by limitation, the amendment must be refused, as to allow such an amendment would cause injury to defendant which could not be compensated by awarding cost as it would deprive him of good defence. 9. Coming to the case in hand, as stated above the plaintiff is not praying for amendment of the prayer of the plaint. What the plaintiff wants to plead is an alternative case to prove his title over the suit land by doing so it would not cause any injustice to the defendant and the question of limitation does not arise. 10 Mr. Das placed reliance to the decision of the Apex Court in Bhavnagar Municipality vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 717 wherein it was held that in suit for possession based on title and plaintiff denying the title, the Court has to give a finding on title even if the defendant does not plea the question of adverse possession. The above ratio is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the defendant has not taken such plea. 11. The above ratio is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the defendant has not taken such plea. 11. Another decision to which the attention of this Court has been drawn was rendered by the Delhi High Court in Shri Kishao Lal vs. Shri Rajan Chand Khanna, AIR 1993 Delhi 1, wherein the Court reiterated the settled principle of law that the amendment seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admission made by the defendant in the written statement should not be allowed. From the facts of the present case it is clear that there is no admission by the defendant. Of course Mr. Das is trying to apply this ratio by submitting that the plaintiff admitted in the plaint regarding possession of title. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Das as in my opinion no such admission was made by the plaintiff and what the plaintiff wants is a decree for declaration of right, title and interest and for the purpose of proving his title the plaintiff wants to insert the plea of adverse possession 12. According to Mr. Das the plaintiff is trying to set up a new case And in support of this learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to M/s Medi Spinning & Weaving Mills vs. M/s Ladha Ram & Co, AIR 1977 SC 680 but the' said ratio is not applicable in as much as in the present case there is oo question of pleading a new case. 13. In support of his contention that an alternative plea of adverse possession can be taken, Mr. Sanaa has placed reliance in two decisions of the Apex Court namely SM Karim vs. Must Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254 and Padminibai vs. Tangavva, AIR 1979 SC 1142 . In SM Karta (npra) from paragraph 5 of the judgment I find that in the alternative a plea was taken that the title was extinguished by adverse possession which was duly considered by the Apex Court from the decision of the Apex Couit in Padminibai (supra) I find that subsequently the Court accepted amendment of the pleading to interest plea of adverse possession. These two decisions fortify the case of the present plaintiff. 14. These two decisions fortify the case of the present plaintiff. 14. For what has been stated above I held that the learned Court below erred in law in not exercising the jurisdiction of the Court in allowing of the amendment Therefore, this is a fit case to invoke revisional power of this Court. 15. The present suit is pending for a long time and Mr. Sarma has submitted that if the amendment is allowed the plaintiff will not adduce any further evidence as the evidence on record is sufficient. This submission of Mr. Sarma shall form part of this order. In other words the plaintiff shall not be allowed to adduce any further evidence. 16. In the result, the petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Court below is directed to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorpprating paragraph 6 F as stated in the amendment petition. The plaintiff shall pays cost of Rs. 300/- before the trial Court and thereafter the amendment shall be made. In the event the plaintiff fails to pay the cost this order shall be deemed to have been set aside. After plaint is so amended, the defendant may file additional written statement and may also adduce evidence but plaintiff shall not be allowed to adduce any further evidence. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court below on the first of March, 1993 and on that date the cost shall be paid. Records may be sent down immediately.