Mr. C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition arises out of the order dated 2 7/07/1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 333/91. Thelearned Judge dismissed the application of the plaintiff/petitioner for amendmentof the plaint which was filed under Order 6, Rule l7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of this petition are that thepetitioner filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Releif Act in thetrial Court wherein a prayer was made that a decree for possession in respect ofproperty in respect of part of the property bearing No. B-12,savitri Nagar (Sheikhsarai), New Delhi and as defined in the plaint be passed against the defendants/respondents. The written statement was filed by the respondent and the following issues with regard to the title of the property apart from other issues were framed: (I) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit, as alleged in the plaint? OPP (ii) Whether the property in suit bears plot No. 12-B as alleged in the plaintor plot No. 1 as alleged by the defendants?the petitioner during the course of the proceedings in the suit moved anapplication under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application has been filed before this Court as Annexure A and the following amendments were sought: (A) The title of the plaint be read as under:"suit for possession" instead of "suit for possession under Section 6 of thespecific Relief Act. "para 19 about valuation of the suit will read as under after amendment. That the value of the suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction is fixed atrs. 90,000. 00 and on which a Court fee of Rs. 322. 40 has been paid. ( 2 ). The learned Additional District Judge heard the application and came tothe conclusion that the plaintiff was intending to change the nature of the suit fromsuit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to a regular suit forpossession which will alter the cause of action. 322. 40 has been paid. ( 2 ). The learned Additional District Judge heard the application and came tothe conclusion that the plaintiff was intending to change the nature of the suit fromsuit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to a regular suit forpossession which will alter the cause of action. He has further stated in his orderthat in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act limitation prescribed is six months fromthe date of dispossession and in the regular suit for possession, the same isprescribed as 12 years and the limitation period in both the suits are different. Thepetitioner accordingly was intending to change the suit for possession undersection 6 of the Specific Relief Act to a regular suit for possession and the same wasnot permissible. The application was accordingly dismissed. The learned Counselassailed the findings of the Trial Court mainly on the ground that the amendmentsare in-consequential and the same would not in any manner change the nature ofthe suit or were inconsistent with the original plaint. The cause of action or the. character of the suit was not proposed to be altered nor did the amendment willchange the identity of the plaintiff which will remain the same. He has relied uponthe judgment of the Supreme Court as reported Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. Nationalbuilding Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1267 which has laiddown certain guidelines for granting leave to amend the pleadings. The relevantportion in paragraph 5 reads as follows:rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration ofjustice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake,negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules or procedure. Thecourt always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfiedthat the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he hadcaused injury to his opponent which may not be compensed for by an orderof costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission,and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. ( 3 ). He has then cited the judgment as reported M/s. Ganesh Rading Co. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission,and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. ( 3 ). He has then cited the judgment as reported M/s. Ganesh Rading Co. v. Mojiram, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 484 to reiterate the proposition that where theproposed amendments did not alter the cause of action or the character of the suitnor did they change the identity of the plaintiff who remained the same, the,amendments cannot be disallowed. ( 4 ). The learned Counsel then REFERRED TO me to the judgments of this Court asreported in Mis. Rising Sun Press, Delhi v. Shri Ram Narain and Ors.), AIR 1973 Delhi 167, Kartar Singh v. Sir Sobha Singh and Sons 1974 Rajdhani Law Reporter 491and Mis. Allahabad Law Journal Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Skyways Construction Corporation and Ors. AIR 1992 Delhi 9. ( 5 ). 1 have perused the application which has been filed by the petitioner and itcannot be said that the amendments which are REFERRED TO to in the application will inany manner cause the nature or character of the suit to be changed and will causeany hardship to the respondent. The learned trial Judge has erroneously come tothe conclusion that the amendment cannot be allowed merely on the ground thatthe requirement for filing the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and fora regular suit are different insofar as the period for limitation is concerned and thecause of action was also dependent on these facts. This finding cannot be sustainedin the face of the settled position of law wherein it has been consistently held thata party cannot be refused such a relief unless it is proved that the said party wasacting mala fide or intended to cause injury to his opponent which- may not becompensated by any order of costs. The amendment can always be allowed if it canbe made without injustice to the other side. ( 6 ). In the present case the petitioner has only prayed for amendment of thecause title wherein it is intended to assert "suit for possession" instead of Suit forpossession under Section 6 of the Speafic Relief Act and the next amendment whichis prayed for is with regard to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court feeand jurisdiction. In the present case the petitioner has only prayed for amendment of thecause title wherein it is intended to assert "suit for possession" instead of Suit forpossession under Section 6 of the Speafic Relief Act and the next amendment whichis prayed for is with regard to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court feeand jurisdiction. These amendments will not in any manner cause injustice to therespondent particularly in view of the fact that the earlier suit also related topossession on the basis of the title and the issues in this regard have already beenframed and the same are reproduced in earlier part of the judgment. In view of the above settled position of law, this revision petition is allowed. The amended plaint shall be taken on record and the suit shall proceed accordingto law. the petitiopner Shall be liable to pay additional Court fees in view of theamendments. The petitioner shall also pay costs to the Legal Aid and Advice Board,new Delhi which I quantify at Rs. 1,000. 00 as fairly suggested by learned Counselfor the respondents. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 24/02/1993.