JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - Being felt aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge (confirmed in revision by the learned Additional District Judge) rejecting the prayer for amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the same. 2. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) has filed T.S. No. 9 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur for permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties 3 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as, defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 respectively) from interfering with his exclusive possession over the land measuring Ac. 0.061 decimals of Hal Plot No. 703 appertaining to khata No. 208 of mouza Luchapada (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') His case is that Mahalaxmi, mother of defendants 2 and 3 agreed to sell the suit land to him. Before execution of sale-deed, she expired on 20.3.1992. She had, however, executed a will in favour of her two daughters, defendants 2 and 3, prior to her death. The plaintiff after coming to know about the death of Mahalaxmi approached the defendants 2 and 3 to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land as was promised and agreed to by their mother. They assured the plaintiff that after the family partition between them, sale-deed would be duly executed by either of them in whose share the suit land would fall in partition. Defendant No. 2 thereafter executed a registered sale-deed dated 25.11.1994. In respect of the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and delivered vacant possession of the same. Since then, the plaintiff is in peaceful and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit land. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff on 5.12.1994 found stacking of some metals and murram over the suit land. On enquiry, he could understand that defendant No. 1 had stacked the materials with a view to construct a road on a portion of the suit land. When asked, the defendant No. 1 threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. Finding no other way, he filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from entering upon and interfering with his peaceful and exclusive possession over the suit land. When asked, the defendant No. 1 threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. Finding no other way, he filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from entering upon and interfering with his peaceful and exclusive possession over the suit land. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. His case is that defendants 2 and 3 mutually agreed that Ac. 0.11 cents from Hal Plot No. 703 (which measure Ac. 0.122 decimals in total) would be allotted to defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 2 would be allotted Ac. 0.12 cents in survey No. 613/3. By such oral family arrangements, defendants 2 and 3 continued to enjoy respective item of the land mentioned above. Defendant No. 3 being in need of money, sold the entire extent of Ac. 0.11 cents of Hal Plot No. 703 to him (defendant No. 1) by registered sale-deed dated 10.11.1994 and delivered possession thereof on the same day. Defendant No. 2 has no interest in the suit land and she could not have sold the same to the plaintiff and the so-called sale-deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff on 26.11.1 994 is void. Defendant No. 2 filed her written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. She alleged that the sale-deed executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 is void and invalid. Defendant No. 3 filed separate written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. Her case is that the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No. 2 had set up an imaginary safety to grab the property. 3. In course of trial, P.W. 1 was examined. At that time, plaintiff could detect that the oral partition between defendant 2 and 3 who are co-sharers in respect of the suit land is invalid being hit by Section 19 of the O.L.R. Act. The admitted case of all parties being that there was an oral partition between defendant 2 and 3 coupled with the fact that the plaintiff's prayer for permanent injunction basing upon his exclusive possession is derived from his vendor who get the suit land in partition, there is likelihood of multiplicity of proceedings. The admitted case of all parties being that there was an oral partition between defendant 2 and 3 coupled with the fact that the plaintiff's prayer for permanent injunction basing upon his exclusive possession is derived from his vendor who get the suit land in partition, there is likelihood of multiplicity of proceedings. Besides this, although the suit can be decided on the basis of possession, title to the suit land of the plaintiff vis-a-vis defendant No. 1 might remain defective in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the O.L.R. Act which may lead to another set of litigations for determination of the title. Therefore, with a view to avoid multiplicity of the proceeding he (plaintiff) filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint and also to incorporate an additional prayer for partition. The defendant No. 1 filed objection to the application for amendment. The learned trial Judge by order dated 9.7.1996 (Annexure-4) rejected the plaintiff's prayer for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the proposed amendment for partition is "totality new to the suit and will change the nature and character" of it. The plaintiff challenged the aforesaid order of the trial Judge before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Berhampur by filing Civil Revision No. 10 of 1997 and the revisional authority by order dated 9.12.1997 (Annexure-5) rejected the revision holding that with the insertion of the relief of partition, the fundamental character of the suit will be completely, changed and the defendant No. 1 will be highly prejudiced. 4. Shri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petition contended that the amendment sought for is of formal nature and in view of the admitted position that there was an amicable partition between defendants 2 and 3, the alternative prayer for partition of the suit land will not prejudice any one and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for determining the real controversy in the suit, the prayer should have been allowed and the learned Additional District Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in not interfering with the order of the trial Judge. Shri Sanjit Mohanty appearing for defendant No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that by the proposed amendment a new case is being substituted and if the same is allowed, it would change the nature and character of the suit. Shri Sanjit Mohanty appearing for defendant No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that by the proposed amendment a new case is being substituted and if the same is allowed, it would change the nature and character of the suit. In support of this submission, he relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Malu Sandh and Another Vs. Manbodh Bagarti. Relying on a Bench decision of this Court in Harekrushna Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack 83 (1997) CLT 796, he also contended that a writ Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction should not interfere with the impugned orders as it cannot sit in appeal over those order : Order 6, Rule 17, CPC gives a wide discretion to the Court to allow amendments necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. We may state that the discretion must be exercised according to judicial principles and not in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. As has been hold by the Supreme Court in Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others, the power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court. 5. In the suit out of many issues which have been struck, the following are material : "(1) Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and possession over the suit schedule property ? (2) Whether the defendant No. 1 has got right title, interest and possession over the suit property ?" The plaintiff mainly seeks to incorporate the following averments by way of amendment : "7 (a) That the plaintiff filed the suit basing his claim on physical possession and also title. In case for any reason the partition as alleged in the plaint is rendered invalid, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for basing on possession. However, the plaintiff also prays for a partition of the properties mentioned in Schedule 'B'. In case it is found that the partition referred in the plaint between defendant Nos. In case for any reason the partition as alleged in the plaint is rendered invalid, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for basing on possession. However, the plaintiff also prays for a partition of the properties mentioned in Schedule 'B'. In case it is found that the partition referred in the plaint between defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is invalid for any reason whatsoever, this prayer for partition is made for a complete and fuller adjudication of the dispute between the parties". From the aforesaid, it is evident that the plaintiff has alternatively sought for partition of the suit land, in the event the oral partition between defendants 2 and 3 is held to be hit by Section 19 of the O.L.R Act. For adjudication of issue No. (1) extracted above, the question of partition between defendants 2 and 3 has to be incidentally gone into. As a necessary corollary, it has to be found out as to under whose share the suit land has fallen. The proposed amendment being essentially an alternative prayer for partition, the nature and character of the suit is not altered and none of the defendants will be prejudiced in any manner. 6. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge acted illegally in exercise of his jurisdiction in refusing the prayer for amendment. The learned Additional District Judge also failed to exercise his jurisdiction in the matter. 7. Let us now examine the decisions cited at the Bar. The case of Halu Sandh (supra) cited by Shri Mohanty is of little assistance to him. In that case, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. His case was that he purchased the suit land from defendant No. 1 by way of the registered sale deed in 1961 and since then he has been in possession of the same. As the defendant tried to create disturbance in his possession, he filed the suit claiming the aforesaid relief of permanent injunction. While the suit was pending, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint stating, inter alia, that in November, 1981 he gifted away the suit land to one Shyamsundar by executing a registered deed of gift and delivered possession of the land to him. While the suit was pending, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint stating, inter alia, that in November, 1981 he gifted away the suit land to one Shyamsundar by executing a registered deed of gift and delivered possession of the land to him. By virtue of the gift deed Shyamsunder has acquired title in respect of the suit land and he (plaintiff) is in possession of the suit land along with the donee. From the aforesaid, it would be evident that the plaintiff sought to introduce a new cause of action even to the extent of divesting himself of title over the suit land by executing a deed of gift in favour of Shyamsunder. With the amendment, the very basis of the plaintiffs' suit become non-existent. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge held that by the amendment sought for by the plaintiff, the character of the suit would change and accordingly rejected the prayer for amendment. In the case of Harekrushna Sahoo (supra), this Court observed that where the trial Court rejected the application for amendment on valid grounds, which was confirmed by the revisional Court, a writ Court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to disturb the orders. There is no dispute nor can there be any controversy in the matter of exercise of power of a writ Court. The present is, however, a case which stands on a different footing. As already indicated, the prayer for amendment was illegally rejected by the learned trial Judge which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and on that ground a case has been made out by the petitioner for our interference in the matter. 8. In the result, the order dated 9.7.1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur at Annexure-4 and the order dated 9.12.1997 of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Berhampur at Annexure-5 are hereby quashed. The prayer for amendment made by the plaintiff is hereby allowed. The writ application is allowed. There would be no order as to costs. Pradipta Ray, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed