J. B. Goel, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the code ) filed by the defendant seeking amendment in the written statement. The amendment sought is change of date of 25. 10. 95 appearing in various paragraphs of the written statement to 19. 10. 1995. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30. 10. 1995. It is alleged that the plaintiff had first purchased ground floor of property in question from the defendant in October, 1995 and the defendant had also entered into an agreement to sell dated 30. 10. 95 for sale of the first floor alongwith the terrace floor of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs out of which at the time of negotiations a sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 in cash and another sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 by means of a cheque dated 29. 9. 95 was given by the plaintiff to the defendant and the balance amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. However, the defendant inspite of several demands has not completed the sale. Besides claiming specific performance a decree of permanent injunction is also claimed. ( 3 ) THE defendant has filed written statement contesting the suit. It is denied that agreement to sell dated 30. 10. 1995 was signed by the defendant; this is a forged and fabricated document. The signatures on pages 1 to 3 of this agreement dated 30. 10. 1995 are forged and these 3 pages have been attached with fourth page of agreement dated 25. 10. 1995. When this was discovered, a complaint was lodged at Police Station, Kirti Nagar on 27. 8. 1996. It is also pleaded that plaintiff has also deceptively got executed sale deed of ground floor dated 25. 10. 1995 without making payment of full sale consideration of Rs. 22 lakhs and paid only Rs. 3. 50 lakhs only on that date besides Rs. 50,000. 00 paid on 29. 9. 95 as earnest money and for its cancellation a suit has been filed. ( 4 ) IT is also stated that he had entered into agreement to sell dated 25. 10. 1995 for sale of first floor portion for Rs. 3. 50 lakhs only on that date besides Rs. 50,000. 00 paid on 29. 9. 95 as earnest money and for its cancellation a suit has been filed. ( 4 ) IT is also stated that he had entered into agreement to sell dated 25. 10. 1995 for sale of first floor portion for Rs. 18 lakhs and only Rs. 3. 00 lakhs had been paid till 25. 10. 1995 and the balance amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was payable by 31. 1. 1996 but it has not been paid inspite of several letters of demand. ( 5 ) IN the application for amendment it is alleged that sale deed in respect of ground floor was executed on 19. 10. 1995 and on the same date agreement to sell in respect of first floor was entered into and not on 30. 10. 1995 or on 25. 10. 1995 and the date of 25. 10. 1995 was mentioned mistakenly, and so seeks to amend this date by amendment of 25. 10. 1995 as 19. 10. 1995 occurring at various places in the written statement. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff in reply has contested this application on various grounds, that is, the proposed amendment is mala fide and vexatious, sets up entirely new case, is also not necessary for determining the controversy involved and the plea was available earlier also; such an application was also filed in a suit filed by the defendant for cancellation of sale deed in respect of ground floor which was dismissed and that order operates as res judicata. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant-defendant has contended that the mistake has been caused inadvertently and neither a new case is being set up nor any prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff. Whereas learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on a number of case law and has contended that the amendment is not permissible in law. ( 8 ) THE defendant has denied that he had entered into the agreement to sell dated 30. 10. 95. He has given the factual history of first agreement to sell and later execution of its sale deed. Earlier it was alleged that the first sale deed was executed on 25. 10. 1995 and now he wants to change this date as 19. 10. 1995 occurring at various places. 10. 95. He has given the factual history of first agreement to sell and later execution of its sale deed. Earlier it was alleged that the first sale deed was executed on 25. 10. 1995 and now he wants to change this date as 19. 10. 1995 occurring at various places. ( 9 ) THE law laid down in the cases relied by the learned Counsel for plaintiff is not disputed, however these cases deal with the facts and circumstances of their own case. ( 10 ) RULES of pleadings in civil cases as contained in Order 6 of the Code are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine the controversy which is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take. It is well settled that Order 6, Rule 17 containing provision for amendment of pleadings is intended for promoting the ends of justice or in other words to prevent miscarriage of justice or for just and proper administration of justice. Even if a party or its Counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued and the shortcomings can be removed generally by appropriate steps to pay costs for inconvenience or expenses caused to the other side from its omission. (See Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484 ). ( 11 ) IN the matter of allowing amendment of pleading the general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on the new cause of action is barred. ( 12 ) BUT a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated by an order of costs. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. (Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 . The general rule is that the Courts should be liberal in allowing amendment for the real issues between the parties being tried. ( 13 ) IT is also settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings (Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and Anr. , AIR 1995 SC 1498 ). ( 14 ) IN the present case, the case is at the initial stage, this application was filed shortly after the written statement was filed, no new case is being introduced, nor any admission is being retracted which may have the effect of taking away any right accrued to the plaintiff. The mistake sought to be corrected had apparently occurred due to negligence or carelessness on the part of the defendant or his Counsel inasmuch as similar mistake had occurred earlier in the other suit. ( 15 ) AS regards the plea of res judicata order declining to allow amendment in one case will not operate as res judicata in another case. Moreover, the pleadings of the other suit and the judgment in that suit have even not been placed on record. ( 16 ) IN my view the opposition against the proposed amendment is wholly unjustified. The proposed amendment seems to be necessary for deciding the real controversy involved. ( 17 ) THIS application is, accordingly, allowed and the defendant is permitted to effect proposed amendment in the written statement.