Order 1. This civil revision by the defendent no. 2 is directed against an order by which the court below has allowed amendment of the plaint. 2. The plaintiffs-opposite party have filed Title Suit No. 182 of 1981 seeking a declaration that the deed (registered) dated 7.8.76 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants is deed of simple mortgage and not a deed of out and out sale. Their case, shortly stated, is that they had taken loan of Rs. 5,200/- from defendants and executed deed of simple mortgage on 14.4.70. As they could not return the money, they approached the defendants for further loan and agreed to execute a deed of 'bai-bul-bafa'. The defendants agreed on the condition that the plaintiffs should return the entire money by 28.12.81 in which case the defendants would return the deed. The plaintiffs agreed and executed the deed of simple mortgage on 7.8.76 with respect to the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, although the deed was executed for sum of Rs. 22,500/- they had, in fact, taken Rs. 9,250/- only in cash, the rest amount, i.e. Rs. 13,250/- was added as interest on the amount advanced upto 28.12.82. According to the plaintiffs' case further, the defendant never came in possession over the property except a shop-cum-room on rent of Rs. 480/- per annum for which the defendants executed a separate deed on 1.1.77 in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed as the defendants refused to receive the money and return the document to the plaintiffs. 3. The case of the defendant-petitioner, shortly stated, is that the plaintiffs took Rs. 22,500/- and executed a deed of out and out sale with a stipulation that the vendees, i.e. the concerned defendants will execute a deed of re-conveyance if the plaintiffs fail to payoff the said consideration money of Rs. 22,500/by 28.12.81. After execution of the deed defendant nos. 1 and 2 came in exclusive possession over the property. While the portion (the shop) came in possession of defendant no. 1 and his son, the 'jenani' (inner) portion of the property was given to the plaintiffs on rent. 4. In the midst of examination of witnesses, the plaintiffs filed two applications on 31.10.95 and 2.11.95 for amendment of the plaint seeking deletion of certain words/ sentences/paragraphs and addition of a new relief. 1 and his son, the 'jenani' (inner) portion of the property was given to the plaintiffs on rent. 4. In the midst of examination of witnesses, the plaintiffs filed two applications on 31.10.95 and 2.11.95 for amendment of the plaint seeking deletion of certain words/ sentences/paragraphs and addition of a new relief. The proposed amendments have been allowed by the impugned order. 5. Mr. Bhupendra Narain Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment if allowed to stant would change the nature of the suit. The court below therefore committed error in allowing the same. He confined his submission to the amendment in the relief portion wherefrom the plaintiffs seek to delete the relief as to declaration that the deed dated 7.8.76 is a deed of simple mortgage. As indicated at the outset, the declaration sought in the plaint was to the effect that the deed in question is a deed of simple mortgage and not a deed of out and out sale. The point for consideration is whether the deletion of the part of the relief would change the nature of the suit. 6. As noticed above, the plaintiffs definite case is that the deed is not of sale. The defendants also admit that the plaintiffs had a right of re-conveyance. It may be recalled that even according to the plaintiffs, they had agreed to execute a deed of 'bai-bul-bafa. The expression 'bai-bul-bafa' refers to deed of conditional sale or out and out sale with condition of re-purchase. If even according to the defendants the plaintiffs had right of reconveyance, prima facie, the deed in question cannot be a deed of absolute sale. If I have understood the defendants' case correctly, the deed can be described as deed of mortgage by conditional sale. 7. I do not want to discuss this point further because that may prejudice the parties. I may observe that sometimes on account of wrong understanding, a document is wrongly described as deed of sale or mortgage. Mortgage itself is of different kinds. And there is often bonafide confusion regarding its nature. It is to be emphasised that the nature of the documents is to be decided on the basis of evidence at the stage of trial. Allowing amendment does not amount to accepting the case of the party on merit. Mortgage itself is of different kinds. And there is often bonafide confusion regarding its nature. It is to be emphasised that the nature of the documents is to be decided on the basis of evidence at the stage of trial. Allowing amendment does not amount to accepting the case of the party on merit. It would not be out of place to mention here that the plaintiffs have sought additional relief for recovery of possession on payment of ad valorem court fee, a right which they, prima facie, have in view of the provisions of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act which lays down that in the case of mortgage by conditional sale or out and out sale with condition of re-purchase (pleaded by the defendants themselves) the right of redemption subsists even after the expiry of the period. Earlier the plaintiffs wanted a declaration that the document in question is a simple mortgage and not out and out sale. Now by reason of the amendment they want a declaration that the document is not out and out sale deed and, further, relief of recovery of possession by asking the defendants to receive the consideration money by stipulated date. Such a case is not at variance with the case pleaded by the defendants in the written statement. I, therefore, do not think the defendants are likely to suffer any prejudice of injustice by reason of the impugned amendments. 8. In these premises, I do not find any error in the impugned order. This civil revision is, therefore, dismissed.