( 1 ) THIS is the landlord's revision being aggrieved of the order of dismissal of M. A. No. 2 of 1988 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, Bailhongal, permitting the tenant to carry out the amendment. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: one Shivappa Rudrappa Sutagatti, filed Form 7 on 28-12-1970 in respect of Sy. No. 4/1a measuring 1 acre 9 guntas and Sy. No. 4/3a measuring 2 acres 19 guntas situated at Sampagaon village claiming occupancy right under Shankarappa Shrishailappa Boadannawar. The Land tribunal, Bailhongal granted occupancy right only in vespect of Sy. No. 4/3a measuring 2 acres 19 guntas by its order dated 15-10-1981 and rejected the claim in respect of Sy. No. 4/1a. Being aggrieved of the order of the Land Tribunal, Bailhongal rejecting the claim insofar as it relates to sy. No. 4/1a, the tenant preferred Writ Petition No. 4209 of 1982, whereas the landlord also filed Writ Petition No. 1453 of 1982 questioning the grant of occupancy right in favour of the tenant in respect of Sy. No. 4/3a measuring 2 acres 19 guntas. The tenant's Writ Petition No. 4209 of 1982 way allowed on 28-8-1985 and the matter was remitted back for fresh enquiry in accordance with the requirement of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 whereas the landlord's Writ Petition No. 1453 of 1982 also came to be allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After remand, white the matter was pending for enquiry, the tenant filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of Column 8 in Form 7. The Land Tribunal, after hearing the Counsels on both sides rejected the amendment sought for by its order dated 14-7-1988. The tenant being aggrieved of the order of the Land Tribunal rejecting the application for amendment preferred M. A. No. 2 of 1988 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum wherein the appeal was allowed and the tenant was permitted to carry out the amendment. Being aggrieved of the order of the land Reforms Appellate Authority, the landlord has come up with this revision petition. Being aggrieved of the order of the land Reforms Appellate Authority, the landlord has come up with this revision petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel Sri M. B. Nargund, for the revision petitioner contended that the last date prescribed to file Form 7 is 30-6-1979 wherein the alleged tenant filed Form 7 on 28-12-1976 which is in time. But, after remand of the matter by the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1453 of 1982 and 4209 of 1982, the alleged tenant filed an application on 7-1-1988 praying for amendment of Form 7 in Column 8. The amendment sought for, virtually is barred by limitation wherein no such application can be entertained after 30-6-1979. Therefore, the orders of the land Reforms Appellate Authority allowing the application filed for amendment is erroneous and not sustainable in law. He secondly contended that the application was filed nearly after a lapse of 12 years which cannot be permitted. He nextly contended that in the light of the decision in Seethadevi v Narayana Kamath and Others, the question of permitting the tenant to seek such amendment does not arise at all as it will introduce altogether a new case. Virtually that it amounts to filing of fresh Form 7 after the time prescribed by law. On this ground, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and to direct the Land Tribunal to confine only to Sy. No. 4/3a measuring 2 acres 19 guntas. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel Smt. Shantha W. Joshi, for the respondents firstly, contended that the decision in Seethadeui's case, supra, has no application to the facts of the case and the application filed is only to seek an amendment and it is not a fresh application and therefore, the decision reported supra, is more in favour of the tenant. It is nextly contended that as the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the tenant in respect of Sy. No. 4/1a measuring 1 acre 9 guntas, he preferred Writ Petition No. 1453 of 1982 before this Court and the matter came to be remitted back. The learned Counsel further submitted that even in the writ petition filed, it is specifically pleaded that much earlier, in 1982 itself, that the tenant was also in cultivation of Sy. No. 4/1a measuring 1 acre 9 guntas. The learned Counsel further submitted that even in the writ petition filed, it is specifically pleaded that much earlier, in 1982 itself, that the tenant was also in cultivation of Sy. No. 4/1a measuring 1 acre 9 guntas. Therefore, the amendment sought for does not introduce any new case and it is not a fresh application filed in Form 7 and therefore, it is not barred by limitation. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader submitted that the revision petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the interim order passed and justified the order of the Land Reforms Appellate authority and prayed to dismiss the revision. ( 6 ) IN the light of the submissions, the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the amendment sought for altogether introduces a new case amounting to filing of fresh Form 7 after the date prescribed i. e. , 30-6-1979? 2. What orders? ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that in order to file Form 7, the last date prescribed is 30-6-1979. In the case on hand, the tenant Shivappa Rudrappa Sutagatti, filed Form 7 claiming occupancy right as tenant of Shankrappa Shrishailappa Boadannawar in respect of Sy. Nos. 4/1a measuring 1 acre 9 guntas and Sy. No. 4/3a measuring 2 acres 19 gun-tas. The details of the particulars mentioned in form 7 are as follows:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . The amendment sought for is only in respect of Column 8 in Form 7 which reads as follows. . . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . As seen from the prayer in the application filed for amendment of Column 8, it is to incorporate. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 8 ) NOW the question is, whether such an amendment introduces altogether a new case amounting to filing of fresh application in Form 7? ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel Sri M. B. Nargund, vehemently contended that no such application can be allowed after the last date prescribed to file Form 7 which introduces altogether a new case. In that view of the matter, it has to be examined, whether the Division Bench judgment in seetkadevi's case, supra, disables the tenant to make any such application for seeking of amendment. In that view of the matter, it has to be examined, whether the Division Bench judgment in seetkadevi's case, supra, disables the tenant to make any such application for seeking of amendment. Para 5 of the judgment reads thus: "there can be no doubt that, in view of sub-section (3) of Section 48a, if any mistake has been committed in the application filed in Form 7 filed within time, the application for amendment can be made by the party concerned before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to allow the amendment application if it is satisfied that in not allowing the amendment, it would result in miscarriage of justice. But as far as this case is concerned, we confine our consideration to the question whether the application in question, read with the subsequent application made by respondent 1 could be regarded as an application for amendment at all? As stated earlier, Form 7 was filed by respondent 1 as early as 10-8-1974. The lands in respect of which he claimed to be a tenant and landlords from whom respondent 1 has secured tenancy were set out; There was no statement in the said application that respondent 1 was a tenant of the present appellant. It is for the first time, in the amendment application which was received by the Tribunal on 31-8-1979, respondent 1 claimed to be a tenant of the appellant in respect of the lands specified in the said application. By no stretch of imagination the said application can be regarded as an amendment to the application made earlier as it is entirely a new claim made against a person who was not at all a party to the application filed earlier. It is clear from the application that respondent 1, who was a resident of a small town like Karkala, sent the said application by registered post and even so, respondent 1 has put the date on the application as 30-6-1979 so as to make it appear that the application was filed on the last date fixed by the Act. When the 1st respondent realised that the application was time-barred, he came with a subsequent application as an amendment to the earlier application. When the 1st respondent realised that the application was time-barred, he came with a subsequent application as an amendment to the earlier application. The facts and circumstances clearly establish that the application made by the 1st respondent was entirely a new application and against the appellant who was not a party to the original Form 7 and, therefore, was an application filed beyond the period fixed by Section 48a of the Act. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. This is also the view taken by this Court in Virupaxappa Basappa v Land Tribunal, Dharwar and Others. We entirely agree with the view taken by Kudoor J. in the said decision". ( 10 ) IT is manifest that by virtue of the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 48a, it enables the tenant to seek an amendment and such amendment can be entertained for the right adjudication of the matter involved in controversy so as to avoid miscarriage of justice. The Divi-sion Bench has clearly held that Form 7 cannot be entertained if it is filed after the expiry of 30-6-1979. In that view of the matter, the amendment sought for does not altogether introduce a new case. It is pertinent to note that in Form 7 which came to be filed on 28-12-1976 the tenant has specifically mentioned Sy. No. 4/1a measuring 1 acre 9 guntas and also Sy. No. 4/3a measuring 2 acres 19 guntas. When survey numbers are mentioned, the question of introducing altogether a new case as contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is without any force. ( 11 ) SECTION 113 of the Land Reforms Act reads thus: "113. Application of the Code of Civil Procedure.--Save as otherwise expressly provided in this act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) shall be applicable in respect of all applications and proceedings under this Act before the Court". A plain reading of the section makes it clear that for seeking any interim relief, it is open for either of the parties to make such necessary application inclusive of seeking relief of amendment also. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel that the application filed for amendment is not maintainable is also without any force. A plain reading of the section makes it clear that for seeking any interim relief, it is open for either of the parties to make such necessary application inclusive of seeking relief of amendment also. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel that the application filed for amendment is not maintainable is also without any force. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel contended that even without seeking for such amendment, it is open for the tenant to claim the right of occupancy by placing material evidence. Therefore, even on this ground also, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the order of the Land Reforms appellate Authority. This submission is really strange. When it is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the tenant can claim the occupancy right even without seeking for amendment, it is rather difficult to understand as to what is the harm or prejudice that would be caused if the amendment is allowed. In that view of the matter, the two-fold argument of the revision petitioner is not tenable. Sub-section (3) of Section 48a of the Land Reforms Act clearly enables the tenant to seek the amendment of Form 7, if sufficient reasons are shown. In the case on hand, when the tenant filed Writ Petition No. 4209 of 1982 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, he pleaded as follows: "that the petitioner begs to submit as under: that the land Sy. No. 4/1a measuring 1 acre 9 guntas assessed at Re. 0-64 of Sampagaon Village in Bailhongal taluk of District Belgaum is the subject-matter of this writ petition. That the petitioner is a tenant of the said land and he is in actual possession and cultivation of the same from the last 15 to 20 years. The respondent 3 was the owner of the said land. It is necessary to submit here that the petitioner is also tenant of Sy. No. 4/3a belonging to respondent 3 and as such, after the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by the Act 1 of 1974 the said two lands vested in the State Government. Since the petitioner was tenant of the said lands, he filed an application in Form 7 before the Land Tribunal, Bailhongal and prayed for occupancy rights in respect of the said lands". Since the petitioner was tenant of the said lands, he filed an application in Form 7 before the Land Tribunal, Bailhongal and prayed for occupancy rights in respect of the said lands". Thereby, it makes clear that it is the definite case of the tenant claiming occupancy right even in respect of Sy. No. 4/1a measuring 1 acre 9 guntas. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority allowing the amendment application does not call for interference. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the revision is without any merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. ( 14 ) IT is seen that the matter is pending before the Land Tribunal, Bailhongal since the last 23 years. Therefore, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously in strict compliance with the requirement of Rule 17 of the Kamataka Land Reforms Rules within 6 months. ( 15 ) THE Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 within four weeks.