A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this writ application is to correctness of the order dated 5. 9. 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara rejecting the prayers for (a) amendment of the plaint in paragraph 6 of the election petition questioning election of opposite party No. 2 as Sarpanch under Section 25 of the Orissa Grama panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), and (b) examination of one natabar Samal to prove the entries in the Polio Vaccine Register produced by the Medical officer, Indupur P. H. C. ( 2 ) A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. Election to the office of Sarpanch, Ayeba grama Panchayat was held on 20. 1. 1997. After withdrawal of nomination, petitioner and opposite party No. 2 were only candidates left to the contest. Petitioner challenged the election of opposite party No. 2 on the ground that she was disqualified to be elected as sarpanch under Section 25 (v) of the Act, as she had more than two children. The petition was numbered as Election Misc. Case No 13 of 1997, It was stated that opposite party No. 2 had given birth to these children by the date of submission of nomination papers on 11. 12 1996. The second child was born on 28 4. 1994, and the third child was born after 18. 4. 1995. Opposite party No 2 filed objection taking the plea that she had only one child. On 8 7. 1997 a petition was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'code' seeking certain amendments to the plaint of the election petition The two proposed amendments sought to be made were that in the cause title of the election petition, the name of opposite party no 2's husband was wrongly described as bilaya, whereas the correct name is Bijay, and the date of birth of second child given in paragraph 6 of the election petition was wrongly written as 23. 4. 1994, and it should be corrected to 28. 4. 1994. Objection was filed by opposite party No. 2 taking the stand that the provision of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code is not applicable to election disputes. By order dated 25. 7. 4. 1994, and it should be corrected to 28. 4. 1994. Objection was filed by opposite party No. 2 taking the stand that the provision of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code is not applicable to election disputes. By order dated 25. 7. 1997 the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed the prayer for amendment so far as first prayer is concerned, but refused the second one on the ground that the date sought to be changed was not mentioned in the petition to be 23. 4. 1994. It was stated that in paragraph 6 there was no mention of the date as 23. 4. 1995 but it was mentioned as 23. 4 1994 and therefore, the date mentioned in the amendment petition does not correspond to the date mentioned in paragraph 6 of the election petition and ambiguity was created regarding exact date of birth of second child of opposite party No. 2. That is how the prayer was rejected. Another application under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed on 31. 7. 1997 with a prayer to review the order refusing the proposed amendment The said prayer was also rejected on the ground that no case for bringing in application of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code was made out another application was filed for examination of Natabar Samal. Same was rejected on the ground that relevance Of said witness was not established. ( 3 ) IN support of the application. Mr P. Pujari, learned counsel submitted that the approach of the learned trial Judge is wrong The real essence of the dispute was sought to be brought out and nature and character of the dispute was not sought to be changed by the proposed amendment. Additionally the Polio vaccine Register had been called for from the custody of the Medical Officer and same being not a public document the scope for examining any witness with reference to that register has arisen. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for opp party No. 2 submitted that the petition filed was erroneous on the face of it, as the dates did not tally and at different points of time different dates were indicated. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer for amendment. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for opp party No. 2 submitted that the petition filed was erroneous on the face of it, as the dates did not tally and at different points of time different dates were indicated. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer for amendment. Similarly the document in question being not a public document, question of examining any witness to prove any entry therein did not arise ( 5 ) THE essence of dispute is whether opposite party No. 2 had more than two children at the time of nomination. By Act 6 of 1994 (The Orissa Grama Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1994) (in short, the 'amending Act')the Act of 1964 was amended The ameding act became operative from 18. 4 1994 Section 25 of the Act has been amended by Section 12 of the amending Act, and sub-section (v) has been inserted to provide that a person who has more than two children would be disqualified from being elected/nominated as sarpanch. The proviso to the newly added provision provides that the new provision would be applicable to persons be getting any additional child after one year of the commencement of the Amending Act which came into force as indicated above from 18 4 1994. The real controversy therefore was whether. oppo-site pary No. 2 had given birth to a third child after 18. 4. 1995. The prayer for amendment was to the effect that the date of birth of the second child was 28. 4. 1994 and not 23. 4. 1994 as stated in the election petition the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) has observed that the date indicated in paragraph 6 of the election petition was 23. 4. 1994 which was sought to be changed to 284. 1995. It has been contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) has erroneously held as if the year of birth of the child was sought to be changed from 1994 to 1995 It appears from the pleadings that in paragraph 6 of the election petition the date of birth of the second child was 23. 4. 1994. In the petition for amendment it was stated that the date was sought to be changed from 23. 4. 1994 to 28 4. 4. 1994. In the petition for amendment it was stated that the date was sought to be changed from 23. 4. 1994 to 28 4. 1994 The relevant paragraphs of the plaint and prayer for amendment read as follows para 6 of the plaint that, the O. P. No 2's 3 childrens' name is Manoranjan Swain, aged about 6 years, Pinkulu Swain, aged about 3 years, Malati Swain, aged about 2 months. Out of this first two children are son and the third child is a daughter The date of birth of 2nd child is 23 4 1994 and third child Malati Swain took birth from the womb of O. P No 2 after 18. 4. 1995, one year after the commencement of Orissa Act 6 of 1994 on 18. 4. 1994. " para 3 of amendment petition "that the amendment of date from 23 to 28 is required to be done for the ends of justice and just decision of the case. " this itself shows that learned Civil Judge (J. D.)proceeded on erroneous premises. The plea of opposite parties is that essence of dispute would be changed as the dates play vital role ( 6 ) COURTS exist for deciding the rights of parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases, and they do not exist for the sake of discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy permission to correct an error or mistake should be granted unless it is fraudulent or intended to overreach and where withdrawal does not cause injustice to the other side or such injury may not be compensated by costs prayer for amendment has to be accepted The rules of procedure are intended to subserve the justice. It has to be noted that no hard and fast rule can be laid down, and each case has to depend on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. It has to be noted that no hard and fast rule can be laid down, and each case has to depend on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. But in balancing exercise what should be kept in mind is the object, i. e. , despensation of justice and not mere technicalities which hinder its just dispensation ( 7 ) THE principle in respect of amendment of plaints are as follows (I) All amendments will be generally permissible when they are necessary for determination of the real controversy in the suit (ii) All the same, substitution of one cause of action or the nature or the claim for another in the original plaint or change of the subject-matter of or controversy in the suit is not permissible (iii) Introduction of amendment of inconsistent or contra dictionary allegations in negation of the admitted position on facts are also impermissible though inconsistent pleas on the. admitted position can be introduced by way of amendment. (iv) In general the amendments should not cause prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated in costs. (v) Amendment of a claim or relief which is barred by limitation when the amendment is sought to be made should not be allowed to defeat a legal right accrued except when such consideration is outweighed by the special circumstances of the case. The main criteria to be applied are. (A) Whether the amendment sought for is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the subject-matter in the case? (b) Whether the proposed amendment completely and fundamentally changes the nature and character of the stands taken by the party concerned or in other words puts up a completely new case? (c) Whether by allowing the proposed amendment any right vested in other party by lapse of time is going to be materialty affected? (d) Whether the party concerned has been able to offer a reasonable explanation why the application for amendment could not be made before the trial court ?if answers to the question under (a) and (d) are in the affirmative and answers to (b) and (c) are in the negative, the application for amendment cannot be thrown out, merely because, allowing it would necessitate further evidence to be taken in the case. ( 8 ) THE use of the words 'real question in controversy' under Order 6, Rule 17 of the code is very significant Once the Court is satisfied that the amendment asked for the purposes of proposing or detetmining the real questions in controversy between the parties, there is really no discretion at all for the Court in the matter, and such amendments must be granted as of course, recognises the scope for all these amendments and those of Rule 17 other sort, and leaves them to be dealt with by the Court as its absolute discretion. (See Leach and Co v Jarding Sukinner and Co and pirgonda Patil v. Shidgonda Patil. The true test is whether the amendment is foreign to the subject matter of the suit, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to grant it. Generally, the practice of the Court is to be guided by the interest of justice. The amendment may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. This rule aims at avoiding multiplicity of suits and is wide enough to allow an amendment of the plaint, and written statement but it cannot change the fundamental character of the suit ( 9 ) JUDGED in the above background, the refusal to accept prayer to amend the date was improper We direct that the election petition be amended to that extent in paragrapli 6 thereof. ( 10 ) SO far as the second aspect is concerned, it is to be noted mat the prayer to examine Natabar Samal as a witness to prove the entries of the Polio Vaccine Register produced by the Medical Officer of Indupur P. H C. was rejected on the ground that the petition filed under Order 16, Rule 3 of the Code did not elaborate the reasons for seeking such permission. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner mat an appropriate application shall be filed giving all necessary details and particulars. In case it is filed, same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs p. C. Naik, J.-I agree. Petition allowed. .