A. KABIR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against order No. 137 dated 26th April, 1995, passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd court, Burdwan, in Title Suit No. 98 of 1987, allowing the plaintiffs' application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure, for amendment of the plaint. ( 2 ) ONE Satya Prosanna Dikpati, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the substituted opposite parties, filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner No. 1 herein and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, inter alia, for permanent injunction to restrain the original defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs' right of user in respect of the passage described in Schedule "a" to the plaint and from being dispossessed therefrom upon declaration of the plaintiffs' right, title and interest therein and for other reliefs. The case made out in the plaint is that the original plaintiff and the defendants are residents of the same area and that the said plaintiff was the owner of the passage described in Schedule 'a' to the plaint and situated on the contiguous west of the residence of the plaintiff. That the said passage together with other properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's father and on his death his sons, including the plaintiff, and one daughter, inherited the said properties with the plaintiff inheriting a one-fourth share therein. The house properties were amicably partitioned by a registered deed dated 2nd February, 1982, and on the basis of the said deed of partition the plaintiff was allotted the property mentioned in Schedule 'a' of the plaint. ( 3 ) THE further case of the plaintiff was that the property described in schedule 'b' of the plaint belonged to the mother of the petitioner No. 1 herein and that since the partition was effected the plaintiff was exclusively using plot No. 8163 as a passage which lies to the contiguous south of the petitioners' house. That the petitioners herein tried to obstruct the said passage while raising their construction and became aggressive when asked by the plaintiff to remove such obstruction, resulting in the filing of the suit. ( 4 ) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. That the petitioners herein tried to obstruct the said passage while raising their construction and became aggressive when asked by the plaintiff to remove such obstruction, resulting in the filing of the suit. ( 4 ) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Bidyut Banerjee submitted that the petitioners have entered appearance in the suit and is contesting the same by filing their written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint and asserting that the passage in question, comprising plot No. 8163 and described in Schedule 'a' of the plaint, has been described as a pathway in the C. S. Record of-Rights for use of the public at large and that the plaintiff did not have exclusive right therein. Various other objections were also taken in the written statement and it was denied that the defendants had encroached upon the suit passage in any manner, particularly in view of the plaintiff's own admission that the defendants have a right over a portion of the pathway measuring 4' ? 5'. ( 5 ) MR. Banerjee submitted that several applications were made by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, which were allowed by the learned court below by Order No. 45 dated 18th April, 1989, and the defendants were given liberty to file their additional written statement in view of such amendments. Mr. Banerjee submitted that after the defendants filed their additional written statement the plaintiff made yet another application for further amendment of the plaint whereby the plaintiff, inter alia, wanted to bring two other plots, namely plot Nos. 8161 and 8161/8320 within the ambit of the suit with a prayer for recovery of possession in respect thereof on the plea of events occurring subsequent to the filing of the suit upon asserting that the said lands, being sought to be incorporated in schedule A (2) of the plaint, along with plot No. 8163, described in Schedule A (1), are part and parcel of the plaintiff's land and that the defendants had encroached thereupon. Consequential amendments were also sought for in the body of the plaint and in the prayer portion thereof. ( 6 ) MR. Consequential amendments were also sought for in the body of the plaint and in the prayer portion thereof. ( 6 ) MR. Banerjee submitted that the defendants/petitioners herein contested the said application for further amendment of the plaint by filing written objection wherein it was contended that such amendment, if allowed, would completely change the nature and character of the suit and the case as originally made out in this plaint would be supplanted by a completely new case. ( 7 ) MR. Banerjee submitted that despite such objection, the learned Munsif by the impugned order No. 137 dated 26th April, 1995, allowed such prayer for amendment in erroneous exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him. ( 8 ) REITERATING the objections taken on behalf of the petitioners before the learned munsif, Mr. Banerjee urged that by allowing such amendment the learned munsif had, in fact, permitted the plaintiff to substitute a new and completely different case in place of the case as originally made out in the plaint, which was not permissible in law, and the learned munsif had thereby acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) MR. Banerjee urged that had the amendment been confined to the suit property, as described in the original plaint, the position would have been different, but if the plaintiff was allowed to add and to incorporate other properties in the plaint, it would amount to introducing a completely new case in place of the case as originally made out in the plaint, which was contrary to the established law relating to amendment of pleadings. ( 10 ) IN support of his submissions Mr. Banerjee referred to and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Kumar v. Mongal Sain Wadhera, reported in (1984)3 SCC page 352, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, observed that normally amendment in the plaint is not allowed if it change the cause of action. However, where the amendment does not constitute an addition of a new cause of action, or raise a new case, but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on record, the amendment would be allowed. However, where the amendment does not constitute an addition of a new cause of action, or raise a new case, but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on record, the amendment would be allowed. It was observed further that processual justice requires that the events and developments subsequent to the institution of proceedings must be taken into consideration in appropriate cases to promote substantial justice. ( 11 ) OPPOSING the application on behalf of the plaintiffs/opposite parties, Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee submitted that the amendment in the plaint, as sought for by the plaintiffs and allowed by the learned court below, did not in any way change the nature and character of the suit as contended on bahalf of the defendants/petitioners. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the cause of action for the suit was the attempt on part of the defendant to encroach upon and obstruct the passage which was in the exclusive use of the plaintiffs. Mr. Chatterjee urged that the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs was merely an extension of the facts in the plaint on account of the events which occured subsequant to the filing of the suit. ( 12 ) MR. Chatterjee submitted that in the course of construction the defendants not only encroached upon the passage as indicated in Schedule 'a' to the plaint but also on other contiguous plots after the suit was filed. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that in view of the dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendants during the course of the suit, from the adjoining plots, it had become necessary to amend the plaint to avoid multiplicity of suits. ( 13 ) MR. Chatterjee urged that the decision cited by Mr. Banerjee would, in effect, apply to the plaintiffs' case since what was being sought to be brought in the plaint by amendment did not constitute a new cause of action or raise a new case but merely added to the facts already on record. ( 14 ) MR. ( 13 ) MR. Chatterjee urged that the decision cited by Mr. Banerjee would, in effect, apply to the plaintiffs' case since what was being sought to be brought in the plaint by amendment did not constitute a new cause of action or raise a new case but merely added to the facts already on record. ( 14 ) MR. Chatterjee then urged that it is well settled that all amendments which did not work injustice to the other side and were necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties are ordinarily to be allowed and that amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had not been amended and such amendment would cause him injury which could not be compensated by costs. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that amendment of the pleadings cannot also be allowed in respect of a cause of action which since the filing of the suit had become barred by limitation. ( 15 ) MR. Chatterjee urged that if by the proposed amendment a new cause of action was sought to be introduced which was otherwise barred by any provision of law, then, in such case, such an amendment would obviously merit rejection. Otherwise, it was well-settled that the courts should be liberal in allowing amendment of pleadings to effectively decide the real issue at controversy between the parties to the suit. ( 16 ) IN support of his aforesaid submissions Mr. Chatterjee firstly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others, reported in AIR 1957 SC, page 363. Mr. Chatterjee also referred to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haridas Aildas Thadani and Ors. v Godraj Roostam Kermani, reported in AIR 1983 SC, page 319, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer of amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. It was also observed that a revisional court ought not to lightly interfere with a discretion exercised in allowing amendment of pleadings in the absence of cogent reasons or compelling circumstances. ( 17 ) MR. It was also observed that a revisional court ought not to lightly interfere with a discretion exercised in allowing amendment of pleadings in the absence of cogent reasons or compelling circumstances. ( 17 ) MR. Chatterjee next referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shikbaschand Jain v. Digambar Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors. , reported in AIR 1974 SC, page 1178, where it was observed that it is open to a court to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate or where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation or to do complete justice between the parties. ( 18 ) ON the question involving multiplicity of suits, Mr. Chatterjee referred to a single Bench decision of this court in the case of Jabeda Khatoon v. Kaiser Bux and Ors. , reported in 1996 (1) CHN, page 67, wherein it was held that the real spirit of order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is that amendments which may be necessary must be allowed in the facts of each case and that an amedment of plaint may even be allowed when it changes the nature of the suit to avoid multiplicity of suits and for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. ( 19 ) MR. Chatterjee lastly referred to the Bench decision of this court in the case of Bibhas Chandra Bose v. Smt. Dolly Bose, reported in AIR 1989, Calcutta 190, wherein the Division Bench, inter alia, held that subsequent event must be taken into account to determine the dispute between the parties and while the first part of Rule 17 of order 6 of the Code dealing with amendment in general vests the court with discration, the later part imposes an obligation on the court and not merely a discretion to allow such amendment for the purpose of determining the real issue at controversy between the parties. ( 20 ) MR. ( 20 ) MR. Chatterjee urged that having regard to the above, inasmuch as, no new case was being made out by the plaintiffs and the facts being introduced by way of amendment merely added to the facts already on record, there was no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the revisional application was liable to be dismissed with costs. ( 21 ) THE submissions made on behalf of both the parties seek to re-iterate the well-established principles relating to amendment of pleadings, that is to say, in what circumstances amendments may and/or should be allowed or be refused. ( 22 ) ONE of the well-settled principles relating to amendments is that the courts should be liberal in allowing amendments, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side and the amendment does not amount to introducing a new cause of action and a new case in place of that which is pleaded in the original plaint. But even in such cases it has also been laid down that events subsequent to the filing of the suit should also be allowed to be incorporated by amendment to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. ( 23 ) IN Jai Jai Manshar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Surgaon (AIR 1969 SC, P 1267) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the power to grant amendment of pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by narrow technical limitations and should be allowed, however late a prayer may be made in that regard, if such amendment can be made without injustice to the other side. ( 24 ) IN addition to the aforesaid principles, a new dimension has also been sought to be added to the principles relating to amendment which is really an extension of the principle that the courts should be liberal in allowing amendments, namely, that amendment should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. ( 25 ) APPLYING the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case it will have to be seen whether the amendment which was allowed by the learned court below either causes any injustice to the defendants or introduces a completely now cause of action which completely charges the nature and character of the suit. ( 25 ) APPLYING the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case it will have to be seen whether the amendment which was allowed by the learned court below either causes any injustice to the defendants or introduces a completely now cause of action which completely charges the nature and character of the suit. ( 26 ) ADMITTEDLY, the suit as originally filed was one for permanent injunction upon declaration of the plaintiffs' right, title and interest in respect of the common passage comprised in plot No. 8163. The cause of action for the suit was the alleged attempt made by the defendants to encroach upon and obstruct the said passage. By virtue of the amendment an addition was made to the original story that some other plots contiguous to the said passage had also been encroached upon during the course of construction by the defendants which necessitated the proposed amendment in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. ( 27 ) ALTHOUGH, it has been urged by Mr. Bidyut Banerjee that since the suit was initially confined to plot No. 8163, any amendment to the plaint could be allowed only in respect of the said plot and no new plot could be introduced in the pleadings as that would have the effect of changing the frame of the suit, I am unable to subscribe to such view since the nature and character of the suit remains the same after amendment as only certain facts have been added to the facts already pleaded which are not completely alien to the lis between the parties. In my view, no injustice has also been caused to the defendants by such amendment being allowed and if such amendment is refused the plaintiffs will only be compelled to file a fresh suit in addition to the suit already pending between the parties. ( 28 ) IN such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned court below allowing the amendment of the plaint and the revisioinal application is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioners will be entitled to file additional written statement in respect of the amendment allowed within four weeks from date. ( 29 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 30 ) LET a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. Application dismissed