JUDGMENT - Dr. Saraf B.P., J.:—This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Solapur passed in Special Civil Suit No. 246 of 1987, rejecting the application of the petitioners under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) for amendment of the plaint. 2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they had become the owners of the suit property by virtue of a Will dated 22nd May, 1987 executed by one late Tippawabai Timappa Hande. The petitioners had also prayed for obtaining an order of injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the petitioners. The petitioners had also filed an application before the Court stating that the 1st respondent had been trying to dispossess the petitioners from the suit property by illegal means and he should be restrained from doing so by an order of injunction. During the pendency of the suit, according to the petitioners, defendant No. 2 took forcibly possession of a part of suit land being Field Survey No. 17/2. An application was, therefore, filed by the petitioners under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint with a view to incorporating a prayer therein for recovery of possession of the Field Survey No. 17/2 from the defendant No. 2. It was also proposed to amend the prayer clause by adding a further prayer for grant of mesne profits from the defendant No. 2 on account of possession of field survey No. 17/2. The above application of the petitioners for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that the introduction of the new prayer for possession of the field Survey No. 17/2 from defendant No. 2 amounted to change in the nature of the suit. The Court observed that if the amendment was allowed, the entire nature of the suit would be changed from a mere suit of injunction to that of a suit for possession. On the above ground the prayer for amendment was rejected by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. On the above ground the prayer for amendment was rejected by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners is that the trial court committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the prayer for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the proposed amendment will have the effect of changing the nature of the suit because that, by itself, is no ground for rejecting the prayer for amendment. Reliance is placed in this connection on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram)1, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 484 and (Panchdeo Narain v. Jyoti)2, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 462. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents supports the order of the trial Court. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. The facts of the case are not in dispute. There is also no-dispute about the fact that no question of limitation is involved in this case even if the new prayer is allowed to be added in the original plaint. The only ground on which the prayer has been rejected by the Court below is that by the proposed amendment the nature of the suit will change. The question for consideration is whether that by itself is a ground for rejection of the prayer for amendment. Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code provides: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.” 6. On a plain reading of the Order 6, Rule 17 it is clear that the power of the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings is very wide. The law is well-settled in this regard by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that all amendments should be allowed which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions and controversies between the parties if such amendments do not work injustice to the other side. The law is well-settled in this regard by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that all amendments should be allowed which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions and controversies between the parties if such amendments do not work injustice to the other side. As observed by the Supreme Court in (P.H. Patil v. K.S. Patil)3, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 363, all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) 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. Amendments 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 costs. For instance, take a case where the plaintiff seeks to amend the pleadings by setting up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which, since the institution of the suit, had become barred by limitation. In such a case the amendment must be refused because to allow it would be to cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by deriving him of a good defence to the claim. The ultimate test is: can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side? 7. As observed by the Supreme Court in (M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram), A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 484 : “.......... that provisions for the amendment of pleadings,......... are intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. Even if a party or its Counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party which must no doubt pay costs for the inconvenience or expense caused to the other side from its omissions. The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued.” (Emphasis supplied) It was further observed : “Even very defective pleadings may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none..... The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued.” (Emphasis supplied) It was further observed : “Even very defective pleadings may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none..... It is only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of action that the Courts should, ordinarily, refuse prayers for amendment of pleadings.” The law was summed up by the Supreme Court in (Haridas Aildas Thadani v. Godrej Rustom Kermani)4, (1984) 1 S.C.C. 668 : “It is well settled that the Courts should be extremely liberal in granting prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side.” 8. The position that emerges from the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that an amendment should always be allowed if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions and controversies between the parties and if it can be made without injustice to the other party. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs. The only exception is where the amendment would take away from a defendant a legal right which accrued to him by lapse of time. Even amendments modifying the original cause of action or adding another may be allowed if the entire subject-matter of the suit is not altered. Introduction of a new cause is no ground for refusing to allow amendment so long as the defendant has the opportunity of meeting the new case by amendment of the written statement and by leading evidence in respect of his defence. Avoidance of multiplicity of suits is also one of the relevant considerations. 9. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the law set out above, it is clear that the learned trial Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for amendment of the plaint. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even on facts, the proposed amendment in the instant case does not effect the nature of case. It is merely consequential to events that had taken place during the pendency of the suit. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even on facts, the proposed amendment in the instant case does not effect the nature of case. It is merely consequential to events that had taken place during the pendency of the suit. In any event it is nobody's contention in this case that any serious injustice or irreparable loss will be caused to the other side if the prayer of the petitioners for amendment is allowed. 10. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court acted erroneously in rejecting the application of the petitioners for amendment of the plaint. The impugned order of the trial Court dated 19-11-1991 is, therefore, set aside. The trial court is directed to allow the petitioners to amend the plaint. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). 12. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. Petition allowed. -----