H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure arises from the judgment and order dated 31-8-1995 whereby the trial court i. e. , the learned munsiff, hunsur has dismissed the application moved by the plaintiff-applicant under order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before i proceed further I may mention that the court below has also taken that the application for amendment is by deletion of relief of permanent injunction has been sought for. But on perusal of the application, i do not find that the relief for permanent injunction has been sought to be deleted. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff i. e. , revision applicant originally filed a suit for permanent injunction with the allegations to the effect that the plaintiff-revision applicant has been a tenant in the premises in the dispute on behalf of defendant-landlord and he further alleged to be in possession of the schedule property. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was making efforts to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff who claimed himself to be the tenant. That as such the need of filing of suit for permanent injunction had arisen. The plaintiff-applicant also moved an application for temporary injunction which according to the plaintiff-applicant had been granted by the trial court by order dated 30th september, 1993 directing the defendants not interfere with the plaintiff-applicant over the suit property. The plaintiff-applicant's case, while making the application for amendment, was that inspite of the temporary injunction order on 1-10-1993, the defendant broke open the doors of the premises in dispute and took unauthorised possession and on account of this subsequent event, need for amendment for the plaint has arisen and as such, he was making the application for amendment in the plaint after having brought subsequent events to the notice of the court. ( 2 ) IN the amendment application by way of amendment, thepetitioner sought to delete the allegations contained in the last two sentences of para 7 which were as follows:"she may dispossess the plaintiff from the premises at any time. Hence the suit for permanent injunction". ( 2 ) IN the amendment application by way of amendment, thepetitioner sought to delete the allegations contained in the last two sentences of para 7 which were as follows:"she may dispossess the plaintiff from the premises at any time. Hence the suit for permanent injunction". after para 7 in the plaint, the plaintiff sought to add new para 7 (a) which was to read as under:"it is submitted that the defendant has violated the injunction order passed by this Hon'ble court and with the help of her husband and his followers dispossessed the plaintiff from the plaint schedule premises subsequent to the service of notice. By disobeying the court orders, the defendant has committed the contempt of court. While dispossessing from the plaint suit schedule premises, the defendant had removed the entire movable properties of the plaintiff which were in the schedule premises and worth more than 1 lakh. After dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises, the defendant had filed a written statement falsely alleging that the plaintiff was not at all possession of the plaint schedule premises. Hence the suit for declaration, possession and injunction". ( 3 ) IN para 8 of the plaint, it has been stated the expressionand attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from schedule premises, they may be allowed to be deleted and in their place, he may be allowed to add on 1-10-1993, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the plaint schedule premises by the defendant and removed the entire movables belonging to the plaintiff from the schedule premises and subsequently in the prayer column, the plaintiff wanted to add after expression judgment and decree the following; declaring that the plaintiff is the tenant under the defendant and in occupation of the suit schedule premises and directing the defendant for restoration and possession of the schedule premises and this expression the plaintiff wanted to add as mentioned earlier after the expression judgment and decree and before the expression for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. . . . ( 4 ) THIS application of the plaintiff was opposed by the oppositeparties. The defendant filed his objections and asserted that the amendment sought for in the application would change the nature of the suit. Hence liable to be rejected. . . . ( 4 ) THIS application of the plaintiff was opposed by the oppositeparties. The defendant filed his objections and asserted that the amendment sought for in the application would change the nature of the suit. Hence liable to be rejected. It was alleged in para 3 of the objections, the allegations made by the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the application is false within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Even otherwise the allegations made by way of amendment, cannot be allowed and if amendment is allowed, prejudice would be caused to the defendant. The trial court rejected the application for amendment. While rejecting the application observed that the suit was for bare injunction and during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has forcibly taken the possession of the property. If such being the case, either the plaintiff has to proceed with the evidence to establish that he was in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit or he has to file separate suit for declaration and possession. But in this case if the permission as prayed for by the plaintiff to amend the plaint is allowed, definitely it will change the nature of the suit and the cause of action. As such, it is not a case to permit the plaintiff to carry on the amendment as prayed for. With these observations, the trial court has rejected the application for amendment. That as mentioned earlier having felt aggrieved from this Order, the plaintiff has come up in the revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitionersri shankarnarayan and Sri Venkatachala appearing for the opposite party. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted before me that the learned court below has acted illegally in rejecting the amendment application on the basis of wrong assumption that it will change the nature of the case or it will be to tentamounts to introducing a new case. The learned counsel further submitted that the court below has acted contrary to the well settled principles of law of amendment as laid down by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the court below has acted contrary to the well settled principles of law of amendment as laid down by the Supreme Court. It has not applied its mind to the question whether any prejudice would be caused or irreparable loss would be caused if amendment is being allowed to the defendant-opposite party. The learned counsel further submitted that the court below did not consider the question whether the amendment was necessary for final determination of the matter in issue. The learned counsel further submitted that when dispossession being subsequent event, subsequent to the filing of the suit, it was the duty of the court to take note of the subsequent event and in order to take note of it was the duty of the court below to allow the amendment and to decide the matter in the light of the amended pleadings and to examine if the allegations of the plaintiff was correct or not that he had been dispossessed on 1-10-1993. The learned counsel submitted that the amendment in question does not introduce new set of ideas or new set of cause of action. The amendment sought is only an additional approach to the facts stated in the affidavit in the plaint in the light of the subsequent events and therefore, there was no good grounds to the court below for rejecting the same taking the view that it was going to change the nature of the case and it was going to introduce new case. Sri Narayan submitted that the subsequent event which had taken place, the court is required to take notice those subsequent events and mould the reliefs as well. The learned counsel submitted that the court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by rejecting the application for amendment under order 6, Rule17. He further submitted that the court below illegally refused to exercise its jurisdiction, vested in it or in any case acted contrary to the well settled principles of law relating to the amendment. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the opposite party, the learned counsel for therespondent submitted that the court below had jurisdiction to determine whether it was fit case in which amendment should be allowed or not. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the opposite party, the learned counsel for therespondent submitted that the court below had jurisdiction to determine whether it was fit case in which amendment should be allowed or not. The court below has rightly come to the conclusion that it will be going to change the nature of the case from the suit for injunction to suit for declaration possession and the plaintiff can well file such a separate suit instead of filing this application for amendment. The learned counsel submitted in case the plaintiff failed to prove his possession as on the date, he would not be entitled for relief of injunction and the suit would have been dismissed and now therefore by amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff wants to brings out a new case and as such, it was not rightly allowed. Even if there is error of law in refusing to grant amendment, it is not jurisdictional error but simple error of law within exercise of jurisdiction vested and every error of law cannot be termed to be illegality in exercising the jurisdiction. The learned counsel submits that the application for amendment had been made 2 years after the date of alleged dispossession and so there is delay as well and that there is no question of jurisdiction involved in the matter within the four corners of Section 115 of the code. ( 7 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by thelearned counsel for the parties. It is no doubt true as submitted by Sri Venkatachala that the jurisdiction of this court under Section 115 is limited to the question of jurisdictional error that is failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested or exercising the jurisdiction not vested or courts acting illegally or with material irregularity in exercising the jurisdiction. Each case has to be judged on the facts and circumstances of the case of its own. If the court below rejects an application without applying its mind to the legal principles applicable to be exercise of the power regarding power of amendment or on the basis of misapplication of those principles, it could well be said to have acted illegally and in breach of those principles. The principle of law relating to amendment has been provided under order 6, Rule 17, c. p. c, provides as under:rule 17. Amendment of pleading. The principle of law relating to amendment has been provided under order 6, Rule 17, c. p. c, provides as under:rule 17. Amendment of pleading. the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such term 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. ( 8 ) A bare reading of Rule 17 per se shows that allamendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties can be allowed and will have to be allowed when an application for amendment was moved irrespective of stage of proceedings at which the application is moved. The court may allow such amendment subject to terms and conditions including costs. The object of this provision is also to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings relating to the same cause of action, or multiplicity of the proceedings involved in the suit, and the purpose is that real controversy and questions involved between the parties may be determined finally. The basic principle of law in this connection has been laid down by the privy council as well as by the Supreme Court in many cases. I may refer here the leading decision of the Supreme Court in the case of pirgonda hongonda patil v kalgonda shidgonda patil and others. In that decision, their lordships of the Supreme Court has quoted with approval as correct principle of law enunciated by batchelor, j. , in the case of kisandas rupchand v rachappa vithoba. Their lordships observed as under:"we think that the correct principles were enunciated by batchelor, j. , in his judgment in the same case viz,, kisandas rupchand, supra, when he said at pp 649-650":"all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the 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. . . . But i refrain from citing further authorities as in my opinion, they all lay down precisely the same doctrine. . . . But i refrain from citing further authorities as in my opinion, they all lay down precisely the same doctrine. That doctrine, as i understand it, is 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 costs. It is merely a particular case of this general Rule that where a plaintiff seeks to amend 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, the amendment must be refused; to allow it would be to cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by depriving him of a good defence to the claim. The ultimate test therefore still remains the same; can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the otherside, or can it not" ( 9 ) THIS principle of law has remained unchanged. In thepresent case the plaintiffs case be tried primarily is whether the plaintiff has been the tenant of the property in dispute and has been in possession thereof as tenant on behalf of defendant. If he has been in possession of the property as tenant in dispute then if on the date of the suit also he is found to be possession, he would have entitled for decree for injunction but on the proof of his tenancy rights. In case if it is proved that the defendant has dispossessed subsequently to the filing of the suit or that the defendant had been dispossessed within the period of limitation, then the plaintiff may in addition be entitled for decree for possession on that basis. The basic claim and the case put up by the plaintiff is not at all changed. His claim is that whether the plaintiff is and has been tenant in occupation of the property. The next question may be for injunction whether on the date of suit for injunction, he was in possession or not. The plaintiff could have pleaded or claimed apart from the decree of injunction alternatively the plaintiff be granted for decree for possession. His claim is that whether the plaintiff is and has been tenant in occupation of the property. The next question may be for injunction whether on the date of suit for injunction, he was in possession or not. The plaintiff could have pleaded or claimed apart from the decree of injunction alternatively the plaintiff be granted for decree for possession. In the present case, the amendment would not change the nature of the case because the basic cause of action the basis on which he is claiming right is remains the same. Here the plaintiff as per the allegations of the plaint sought to bring the subsequent event. If he has been dispossessed subsequently, he was no doubt entitled to bring out subsequent event by the amendment of pleading and to seek modification of relief clause and even. then he could also claim decree for possession and further for injunction that his possession should not be disturbed except in accordance with law. The expression cause of action in the context of amendment application does not mean every fact which is materially to be proved by the plaintiff in order to succeed, when i so observe i find support from the observations of their lordships of Supreme Court in the case of a. k. gupta and sons ltd. V damodar valley corporation. In paragraph 7, their lordships of the Supreme Court, in that case, observed as under:the general Rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred. . . But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of statutory period of limitation; see charan das and others v amir khan and others and l. j. leach and co, ltd. And another v messrs. Jardine skinner and co. ". And another v messrs. Jardine skinner and co. ". ( 10 ) IN paragraph 9 of the very same judgment, theirlordships further observed as under:the expression "cause of action" in the present context does not mean "every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed" as was said in cooke v gill , in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in robin son v unicos property corporation limited and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the Rule futile. The words "new case" have been understood to mean "new set of ideas" doran v j. W. Ellis and company limited. This also seems to us to be reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time". ( 11 ) APPLYING this test to the facts of the present case, in my opinion that the court below acted illegally and it is really on wrong assumption, refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by refusing the amendment. When i so hold, the reasons on the basis of which i so hold, I may explain that the basic fact that has been pleaded in this case has been that the plaintiff claimed that he is the tenant in the property in dispute and the defendant is the landlord. His case as originally pleaded when the suit was filed, was that the plaintiff has alleged that he was in possession as a tenant even as on the date of the suit and the defendant was attempting or trying to dispossess. Subsequent to the injunction Order, the plaintiff's case is that subsequently the defendant has dispossessed him and so on the ground that he is the tenant of the defendant of the premises in dispute sought to claim by amendment relief for possessions and that case remains would remain to be the same and no change will take place. Subsequent to the injunction Order, the plaintiff's case is that subsequently the defendant has dispossessed him and so on the ground that he is the tenant of the defendant of the premises in dispute sought to claim by amendment relief for possessions and that case remains would remain to be the same and no change will take place. Only on the subsequent event the plaintiff is seeking to place new event that has taken place during the pendency of the case and that amounts to be additional approach to the same set of facts that envisage on the basis of the subsequent events, and only additional approach is that he is also entitled for decree for possession which relief the applicant has sought to add in the plaint in addition to decree for injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiffs possession except in accordance with law. In my opinion no new ideas have been sought to be set up nor any new case has been set up by this amendment and further, this amendment was necessary to avoid the multiplicity of the legal proceedings. That the learned counsel for the opposite party has not been able to show what irreparable loss or injury would be caused by the allowing of the amendment nor can that be said to be not capable of being compensated in terms of money. What rights had accrued to the defendant in that matter on plaintiff failure to claim decree for possession originally or during the period from the date of suit uptodate the defendant-opposite party and his counsel failed to indicate. The plaintiff-revisionist is entitled to bring to the notice of the court the subsequent events that did take place during the pendency of the suit relating to matter in suit. The court below failed to consider the relevant and material principles of law relating to the amendment in right and correct perspective therefore illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under order 6, Rule 17. Hence i allow this revision petition. The amendment application is allowed. Let amendment be incorporated in the plaint within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order or four weeks of having received copy of this order whichever is earlier provided the revision applicant pays or deposits a sum of Rs. 1,650/- as the costs of amendment before incorporating the amendment. The amendment application is allowed. Let amendment be incorporated in the plaint within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order or four weeks of having received copy of this order whichever is earlier provided the revision applicant pays or deposits a sum of Rs. 1,650/- as the costs of amendment before incorporating the amendment. It is after the costs are paid, then he will be allowed to incorporate the amendment. ( 12 ) THE trial court will allow the amendment to be incorporated in the plaint and allowed the defendant reasonable time to file the additional written statement. The revision applicant may either pay costs personally to the counsel for the party and obtain the receipt from him and produce the same in trial court or deposit the costs as mentioned above in the court. The cost of this revision application are made easy. --- *** --- .