Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. This civil revision is by the plaintiffs. By the impugned order their petition for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff-petitioners filed Title Suit No. 34 of 1994 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Patna, for a declaration that the suit land marked by crosslines in red colour in the sketch map attached with the plaint measuring 38.2 x 10 is the common passage of the parties and the defendants have no right to encroach upon any portion of it, and for direction to the defendants to remove all encroachments and obstructions therefrom. Shortly stated, their case is that they purchased the suit land by registered sale deeds in the years 1978 and 1979 and constructed house on its Northern portion. The land opens on Exhibition Road on the East connected by Sahyogi Press lane or Sahyogi Marg. On the North also the land has a opening on the S.P Verma road. The petitioners in order to have easy access to Exhibition Road provided a 10 wide road East to West (in continuation of Sahyogi Marg) and sold land south of it to the defendants under three registered sale deeds dated 31.7.82. The portion immediately south measuring 1 Katha 10 dhurs was sold to defendant No. 1 and the remaining portion on further south was sold to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 separately. The suit land (38.2 × 10 strip of road referred to above) was to be used as the common passage. In the sale deed of defendant No. 1, whose purchased land is situate on its immediate south, the suit land has been described as common Rasta. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants did not pay any consideration money for the suit land. According to the plaintiffs further, they have erected two pillars on the two sides at the eastern end of the suit land and provided an iron gate. On 3.1.91 the defendants dismantled the Southern pillar and removed the gate. They also collected the building material and asked the plaintiffs not to use the suit land as passage. Hence the suit. 3. On 22.6.94 the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint stating that after the acquisition of the land (Schedule 1) they put pucca boundary wall on all sides except on the North and thereafter constructed the building on the Northern portion. Hence the suit. 3. On 22.6.94 the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint stating that after the acquisition of the land (Schedule 1) they put pucca boundary wall on all sides except on the North and thereafter constructed the building on the Northern portion. The enclosed land includes a portion of the tank situate on the West of the plaintiffs land. The width of the enclosed land measures 38.2 near the Sahyogi Marg, 37.5 on further South and 47.53 on extreme South. The defendants, however, in the written statement had falsely stated that they had enclosed 3 land of tank plot. The amendment, therefore, became necessary to explain the facts. The plaintiffs, accordingly proposed that a new paragraph 2A be inserted in the plaint. It would be useful to quote the proposed paragraph 2(A) as follows. That the land adjoining West of area purchased by the plaintiff in M.S. Plot No. 75 and part of 386 was a ditch and tank. The plaintiffs soon after purchase in 1978 and 1979 put a compound wall from the Western, Southern and eastern side and in course of construction as the Western land was ditch the plaintiff enclosed a portion of ditch land also making the width of his land East to West at the place of suit land to be 382" which on the south 375" and on the extreme south became 473". The plaintiff sold to the defendants 3 kaiha 10 dhurs 10 dhurki South of the suit land within the compound put by the plaintiff. 4. At this stage the case of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are husband and wife and have filed a common written statement, may briefly be stated as follows. The defendants admitted that the plaintiffs have purchased the land described in Schedule A of the written statement, broadly corresponding to Schedule I of the plaint, who subsequently sold portions thereof described in Schedules B and E to them under two registered sale deeds. They also admitted that the portion of the land was left to be used as common Rasta both by the plaintiffs and the defendants. They also admitted that the portion of the land was left to be used as common Rasta both by the plaintiffs and the defendants. They have described the said land in Schedule C. The land described in Schedule C of the written statement corresponds to the suit land described in Schedule II of the plaint except that as per Schedule 11 of the plaint it has an area of 38.2 × 10; in Schedule C, its area is shown as 33 × 10. The description of the land shown in Schedule 11 and Schedule C otherwise is the same. 5. Adverting to the plaintiffs case it would appear that the only thing which they proposed to state for the first time is that (i) after the purchase in the years 1978 and 1979 they had raised a compound wall on three sides, and (ii) the land sold to the defendants, South of suit land, lay within the compound wall. Width of the land, as stated in the proposed paragraph 2(A), is the same as mentioned in the sketch map appended to the plaint. 6. The court below has rejected the proposed amendment on the ground that the same is not supported by any document. I fail to understand this logic. The pleading merely indicates the case of the parties. It is only at the stage of the trial that the case is to be proved by documents or otherwise. At the stage of allowing amendment the court is not supposed to see correctness or otherwise of the case sought to be pleaded. It has only to see if the proposed amendment is likely to change the nature of the suit. It hardly need be emphasised that allowing amendment does not mean accepting the case of the parties. Like the original pleading, the party is supposed to prove its case as amended. If he does not, the amended case may be rejected as not proved. 7. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners by seeking the proposed amendment virtually want to amend their sale deeds. If allowed, the amendment would change the entire basis of the suit. He characterised the proposed amendment as malafide. In support of his contention reliance was placed on Pirgonda Hongonda Patil V/s. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors. 8. If allowed, the amendment would change the entire basis of the suit. He characterised the proposed amendment as malafide. In support of his contention reliance was placed on Pirgonda Hongonda Patil V/s. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors. 8. As indicated above, the plaintiffs seek declaration that the suit land is a common passage of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. This is not denied by the defendants. While the plaintiffs alleged that on 3.1.91 the defendants dismantled one of the pillars on the suit land, removed the iron gate and taking steps to make construction and are prohibiting them (plaintiffs) to use the same as passage, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs had closed the passage towards North by fixing iron grills and making construction over the suit land in June, 1992. Another matter in dispute is the area of the suit land. While according to the plaintiffs, the suit land measures 38.2 × 10, according to the defendants the area is 33 × 10. These are the precise questions/issues which are to be determined by the court. I do not think the proposed amendment would amount to amending the sale deed or changing the entire basis of the suit. What, in my opinion, is to be seen is as to whether the plaintiffs seek to plead any different or inconsistent case than the one pleaded by them in the original plaint. I have no doubt in my mind that it does not. In my view, the amendment merely seeks to describe the situation of the land in the vicinity of the suit land. Having regard to the reliefs claimed in the suit, it would only facilitate the proper adjudication of the real dispute. In Pirgonda Hangonda Patil (supra), relied upon by the counsel, it has been observed that all amendments ought to be allowed which do not work injustice to the other side or are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The decision, therefore, does not lend any assistance to the defendants-opposite party, it rather helps the plaintiff-petitioners. 9. In the above premises, I am satisfied that the court below committed error in disallowing the proposed amendment and, thus, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, this civil revision is allowed. 9. In the above premises, I am satisfied that the court below committed error in disallowing the proposed amendment and, thus, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, this civil revision is allowed. The order dated 28.4.95 is set aside. The court below, while allowing leave to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint in the light of the present order, will also give an opportunity to the defendants to amend their pleadings to the extent of the amendment in accordance with law. There will be no order as to cost.