A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) ORDER dated 20-11-1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur rejecting the application for amendment filed by the petitioner under order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'c. P. C. ') in Election dispute Misc. Case No. 11 of 1997 is under challenge. ( 2 ) FACTUAL position leading to filing of the application essentially runs as follows : petitioner and opposite party Nos. 3 to 11 were candidates for the office of Sarpanch of Chandramua Grama Panchayat, for which election was held on 17. 1. 1997. Petitioner was allotted the symbol 'sun' and-opposite party no. 3 was allotted the symbol 'elephant'. Other contestants were allotted different symbols. There are eleven wards in the aforesaid Grama panchayat. Petitioner filed an application before the Election Officer taking the stand that there, was large scale rigging and both capturing by opposite party No. 3 and his support-ers in Booth Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 in connivance with the Presiding Officer, and opposite party No. 3 managed to get himself elected as sarpanch of Chandramua Grama Panchayat. In respect of Ward No. 9 there were 491 voters including 15 voters, who were stated to be dead, and about 100 voters were staying outside. During election the petitioner and his agents alleged mass rigging by opposite party no. 3 and his supporters, but the Presiding officer instead of taking steps to stop rigging allowed opposite party No. 3 and his supporters to commit illegal acts inside the Booth. Petitioner and his agents were threatened with dire consequences for which out of fear they left the Booth. The ballot paper and the boxes were forcibly taken away. During counting of votes which took place on 17. 1. 1997 opposite party No. 3 and his supporters did not allow the petitioner and his agents to be present at the time of counting of votes. Result of the election to the office of Sarpanch of chandramua Grama Panchayat was declared on 27. 1. 1997 and opposite party No. 3 was declared elected. An application was filed on 27. 1. 1997 before the Election Officer to recount the votes in respect of Booth Nos. 8 to 11 inter alia on the ground that various illegalities were committed during election. At the time of recounting of votes in respect of Booth no. 1. 1997 and opposite party No. 3 was declared elected. An application was filed on 27. 1. 1997 before the Election Officer to recount the votes in respect of Booth Nos. 8 to 11 inter alia on the ground that various illegalities were committed during election. At the time of recounting of votes in respect of Booth no. 9 the petitioner found most of the ballot papers were mutilated and thumb impression mark was spread in both the sides of ballot papers. An appeal was made to the Election officer to reject those ballot papers, but the election Officer counted those ballot papers in favour of opposite party No. 3. An election dispute was filed on, 10. 2. 1997 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur bearing Election Dispute Misc. Case No. 11 of 1997. Prayer was to declare the election of opposite party No. 3 as Sarpanch void and to declare the petitioner as Sarpanch. On the same day, i. e. , on 10. 2. 1997 in anticipation of manipulation of ballot papers, voting and result sheets by the Election Officer, petitioner filed an application to call for the documents from the custody of Election Officer, i. e. , used and unused ballot papers issued to each booth, used voter list, report of the Presiding Officer, boothwise result sheets and final sheets and final result sheets. The Election Officer as per the direction of learned Civil Judge produced various documents. Petitioner was examined on 16. 7. 1997 and cross-examined on 19. 7. 1997. The sealed cover containing the documents was opened in Court and it was found that in place of mutilated ballots, thumb mark and ink spread ballot papers, valid ballot papers have been substituted. On 8. 9. 1997 the sealed box containing booth-wise result sheet, final result sheet and report of the Presiding officer for booth Nos. 9, 10 and 11 were opened and scrutinised in presence of learned counsel for parties. From the report of the Presiding Officer the Advocate for the petitioner could know that 350 ballot papers have been rejected out of 481 in respect of booth No. 9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid facts, petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint on 3. 10. From the report of the Presiding Officer the Advocate for the petitioner could know that 350 ballot papers have been rejected out of 481 in respect of booth No. 9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid facts, petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint on 3. 10. 1997 inter alia stating that 350 ballot papers were rejected in respect of Booth No. 9 which he came to know from the report of the Presiding Officer. An objection was filed by opposite party no. 3 stating that the petitioner seeks to fill [he lacuna in the plaint which is an afterthought and new facts were brought in and the application was prayed to be rejected. The Election officer-cum-Block Development Officer binjharpur filed an objection on 23. 10. 1997 to the amendment application taking the stand that there was no manipulation. The learned civil Judge (Junior Division) by his order dated 20. 11. 1997 rejected the application for amendment on the ground that new facts were sought to be introduced after closure of evidence and after recounting of ballot papers was over and the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the election petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner stated that the conclusions of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) are erroneous, in fact the stand of the petitioner is not changed and the materials on record are only to be elaborated to bring the actual controversy into focus. The evidence is not closed and only the petitioner has been examined. ( 4 ) THE question whether amendment is to be allowed depend upon the parameters indicated in Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC. Essentially the principles governing the amendment of plaint 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 of the claim for another in the original plaint or change of the subject-matter or controversy in the suit is not permissible, (III) Introduction by amendment of inconsistent or contradictory allegations in negation of the admitted position on facts or mutuality destructive allegations of 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. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the position in law as highlighted above and the factual position, we are of the view that rejection of the prayer for amendment is not in order. Accordingly the order refusing the prayer for amendment is set aside. However, the petitioner shall take necessary steps for filing the consolidated petition incorporating the amendments within two weeks. The opposite party shall be granted three weeks' time thereafter for filing additional written statement, if any. If a prayer is made for recalling any witness examined, same shall be considered in accordance with law keeping in view the prayer for amendment to the pleadings. Considering the fact that an election petition is to be disposed of early, the learned civil Judge (Junior Division) shall make an effort to dispose of the proceeding early. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above; but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. P. K. Misra, J.-I agree. Revision allowed.