JUDGMENT The applicants/plaintiffs filed two applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 31.3.97 and 14.7.97, By application dated 14.7.97, it was sought to be introduced in the plaint that village Sayar and village Konsakhedi are not different villages, but infact are one village, those are known as Sayar Konsakhedi and in the common parlance these are addressed as Sayar and/or Konsakhedi. By application dated 31.3.97, the plaintiffs wanted to introduce certain further pleadings relating to the conduct of the parties prior to the execution of the sale deed, in the year 1982. They also wanted to make certain further amendment including an amendment in the relief clause to seek an alternative relief. The applications were opposed by the contesting defendants and the trial Court was pleased to reject both the applications. After hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the amendment proposed in the relief clause as clause (c) could have been permitted by the trial Court because it was an alternative relief claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had come out with the specific case that their land was to be treated as consideration for transfer of the defendant's land in their favour as it was a case of exchange of the agricultural lands. Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act provides that for such a relief, the Court shall permit the plaintiff to make an amendment or make a claim. The amendment relating to the alternative relief deserves to and is accordingly allowed. By the application dated 14.7.97, the applicants, as observed above, prayed that they be permitted to make an amendment that village Sayar and Konsakhedi being same, they be permitted to amend their pleadings to avoid any complications in the matter or to clear all the ambiguities. In the opinion of this Court, this amendment ought to have been allowed by the lower Court because it was only to clear an ambiguity which is now floating on the surface of the record as the plaintiffs have somewhere stated that the lands were in village Sayar and at some places, they have stated that the lands were in village Konsakhedi. This amendment is also allowed. This amendment is also allowed. For rest of the amendment, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs could not make out a case for bringing the facts by way of an amendment after a period of 15 years from the date of submission of the plaint. The trial Court was justified in rejecting that part of the amendment. The revision to the extent indicated above, is allowed. The trial Court shall permit the applicants to amend their pleadings by 8th January, 1998. The defendants, if want to make any consequential amendment, they may move an application to the trial Court within next ten days from the date of incorporation of the amendment by the plaintiffs. Parties may be asked by the trial Court to state on affidavits as to whether village Sayar and Konsakhedi are same villages or different villages and whether those are commonly known as Sayar Konsakhedi or not because if the facts are stated on oath, then the trial Court would not be required to record the evidence on this aspect of the matter. In case of a dispute the trial Court shall be free to frame an issue and record evidence on this aspect of the matter. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. CC within two weeks, if applied on urgent charges.