Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 21-3-1998 passed by the learned Munsif, Bettiah, in Title Suit No. 131 of 1992 by which the prayer made from the side of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit against the opposite parties for declaration that the sale-deed dated 25-6-1991 executed by Phulbati Kuer in favour of Manju Srivastava defendant No. 1 in respect of 8 khatas land as detailed in Schedule-II of the plaint is illegal, impropriety and not binding on the petitioner and that the defendants have no right to interfere with the possession of the land. Further prayer was made for issuance of permanent injunction against the defendants regarding restraint for not interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The fact of the case was that one Dukhi Prasad had three sons, namely, Ganesh Prasad, Kamta Prasad and Ganga Prasad. After the death of Dukhi Prasad, three sons in inherited his properties. Ganesh Prasad died leaving behind two sons, namely, Radha Kant Prasad and Duttatrey Prasad. Duttatrey Prasad had three sons, namely, Raman Prasad, Rajesh Prasad and Raju Prasad. A partition took place amongst the three sons of Duttatrey Prasad in respect of their ancestral properties and each son got 1/3 share. Plot No. 711 in Khata No. 116-was the ancestral property belonging to the three sons of Duttatrey Prasad and its total area was 13 bighas 8 Khatta and 10 dhoors. Ganga Prasad in the partition got 3 bighas of land out of plot No. 711 together with other shares in other plots. Ganga Prasad died in the year 1970 leaving behind his widow Phulbati Kuer, defendant No. 3, and his daughter Smt. Sabitri Devi. After the death of Ganga Prasad all the properties devolved on his widow Phulbati Kuer and the daughter Sabitri Devi. On the basis of private partition between the widow and daughter of Ganga Prasad 4 bighas 15 khatas 9 dhoors of land came in possession of Phulbati Kuer and the remaining portion to Sabitri Devi. Phulbati Kuer made a gift of her 3 bighas of land by executing registered deed of gift on 25-3-1972 as shown in Schedule-II of the plaint. The gift was made in favour of Sabitri Devi. Phulbati Kuer made a gift of her 3 bighas of land by executing registered deed of gift on 25-3-1972 as shown in Schedule-II of the plaint. The gift was made in favour of Sabitri Devi. But, it could be found afterwards that the defendants were claiming 8 khatas of land out of the properties of Schedule-II of the plaint, which have been shown in Schedule-Ill on the basis of the sale-deed allegedly executed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 25-6-1991 by Phulbati Kuer. As the plaintiffs possession was threatened by the defendants persons the suit was filed. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and stated, inter alia, that the lands in Schedule-Ill have no concern with the lands in Schedule-II and that there was no gift in favour of the plaintiff by Phulbati Kuer. After contest the suit was decreed in the first Court then the appeal was preferred by the defendants persons. But, the appellate Court held that the suit was not decided in their proper perspective regarding the inclusion of Schedule-Ill within Schedule-II lands and as such, with some observation the suit was remanded to the Munsif Court for deciding the matter afresh. When the suit was remanded then the plaintiff filed a amendment petition to include a sketch map showing the position of Schedule-Ill lands within Schedule-II lands and also for a further plea for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the gifted land. The amendment petition was objected to from the side of the defendants and then the learned Munsif once held that there was no scope of allowance of any amendment after the remand order was passed and referring to the order of remand Court the amendment petitioner was rejected. Then, a revision was preferred by the petitioner being Civil Revision No. 1748 of 1996. Vide order dated 27-6-1997, the revision petition was allowed holding that the learned Munsif has committed error of law in not construing the amendment petition on merit and rejecting it only referring to the remand order. It was observed in the following manner: In my view, the approach was not correct. Vide order dated 27-6-1997, the revision petition was allowed holding that the learned Munsif has committed error of law in not construing the amendment petition on merit and rejecting it only referring to the remand order. It was observed in the following manner: In my view, the approach was not correct. The observations/ directions of the first appellate Court in the remand order for disposal of the suit on the basis of evidence on record did not mean that the parties were stopped to amend their pleadings, if so required and was permissible in law. After the revision petition was allowed the matter was again heard by the learned Munsif and the prayer for amendment has been rejected by the impugned order. The same stand was taken by the Munsif again by referring the order of the first appellate Court to the effect that if the amendment is allowed then further evidence would be necessary to be adduced by the parties and further pleadings should be there from the side of the defendants which was not permissible as per direction of the first appellate Court that the suit should be disposed of on the basis of the materials on record. 3 It has been argued by the learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned Court below has practically violated the orders and directions of this Court in the civil revision petition while rejecting the amendment petition on the ground of observations of the first appellate Court. It is true on perusal of the remand order that there was observation by the first appellate Court to the effect that the suit should be decided afresh by re-writing judgment on the materials on record as points of dispute raised had not been decided by the original Court on their proper perspective. But, the remand order was a open remand. It appears that some issues were decided by the appellate Court sic portion remand was made. But, the remand order was a open remand. It appears that some issues were decided by the appellate Court sic portion remand was made. The remand order was a open one to decide all the issues afresh but it was mentioned that there should be re-writing of judgment on the basis of materials on record and as such it is submitted for and on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that if for ends of justice some amendment is required in the pleadings for coming to a just decision in the crux of dispute then such amendment must be allowed when there was open remand. 4. On the other hand, it has been submitted for and on behalf of the opposite parties that whatever observation was made in the appellate judgment was attempted to be removed by way of amendment in the plaint and hence such amendment cannot be allowed as the same would mean filing up of the lacuna when some right had already been accrued in favour of the defendants as per observation made in the appellate order. 5. The cardinal principal of allowance of amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that if an amendment is sought at any stage of the suit either in the original Court or in the appellate Court the same may be allowed if such amendment does not change the nature of the suit and cause of action and that such amendment sought is not barred by limitation and that the amendment sought for would not taken away any valuable right already accrued in favour of the adverse party and that the amendment was necessary for coming to a just decision in the suit. In the present suit the petitioner at the very threshold committed mistake in not coming up for any positive declaration in favour of the plaintiff rather claiming only a negative declaration against the defendants and that position is attempted to be corrected by the amendment sought. From the averment of the plaint it appears that the plaintiff was claiming the disputed land as part of her gifted land and that the land had been fraudulently sold to the defendants. Subsequently, which could not accrue title in favour of the defendants. The averments were there in the plaint itself but while dealing with the claim the positive declaration regarding the Schedule-Ill lands was not made. Subsequently, which could not accrue title in favour of the defendants. The averments were there in the plaint itself but while dealing with the claim the positive declaration regarding the Schedule-Ill lands was not made. The cause of action for the suit for seeking such amendment is not changed because the cause of action is the bundle of facts which gives right to a person to seek redressal of grievances in a Court of law. The grievances were stated in the plaint itself but the prayer was not made due to inadvertence or mistakenly. When the cause of action is not changed then further relief claimed cannot be disallowed because this will create multiplicity of the suit. It is a established principle of law that all disputes arising out of the parties regarding the same subject matter should be decided in the same suit and on that principle the amendment sought for cannot be dis-allowed. In this respect the findings of the Apex Court as reported in 1967(SC) 96 in the case of A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. V/s. Damodar Valley Corporation, may be referred to. There a prayer was included in the relief portion of the suit, when that prayer for money claim was already time barred. Regarding the description of Schedule-Ill land to be contained in Schedule-II land although the same had been elaborately averred along with the boundary but only to eradicate any further confusion in the matter of statement was being, given in support of whatever have been stated in para-12 of the plaint. It is true that in the observation made in the remand order the appellate Court raised objections to the effect that the pleadings and the evidence on record did not clarify specifically of inclusion of Schedule-Ill to that of Schedule-II as that point was not decided by the so-called original Court. But such observation of the appellate Court was only observation and no decision had been arrived at by the appellate Court. When no decision was there then it cannot be said that the defendants had already accrued a right in their favour against the allowance of the amendment petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties referred to a ruling of this Court reported in 1982 (Patna) 28 in the case of Ram Chandra Choudhary and Anr. V/s. Most Rampabitri Devi and Ors. 6. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties referred to a ruling of this Court reported in 1982 (Patna) 28 in the case of Ram Chandra Choudhary and Anr. V/s. Most Rampabitri Devi and Ors. wherein it was held that when in the remand order by the appellate Court there was direction to allow amendment in the plaint for specific purposes then amendment of the pleadings for other purposes cannot be permitted, but in the present case, there is no much relevance that rules. I have already mentioned that the appellate Courts order reveals of open remand of the case on all issues in the suit and there were issues framed regarding the identity of the land at Schedule-Ill. When open remand was there that means the case remained as it was before the judgment was passed either by the original Court or by the appellate Court and the matter should be construed in that sense only. Moreover, in the 1982 Patna (supra) the judgment of the Apex Court mentioned above have not been considered at all. 7. The crux of dispute in the suit is as to whether there was any gift in favour of the plaintiff by her mother and whether subsequent to any gift there was any sale of the part of the gifted land to the defendant-party by the same vendor or the donor and both these matters could only be decided if proper pleadings are there. It appears that pleadings were not proper which created confusion and as such remand order was made by the appellate Court and if the amendment is allowed the same would to take away the rights of any of the parties and such amendment is also not barred by limitation nor it changes the cause of action rather the amendment sought for is necessary for giving a just decision in the suit. Hence, I find that the learned Court below has committed error of law and jurisdictional error also while not considering the amendment petition on merit rather rejecting it again and again on technical grounds referring to the observation of the remand order, clouting even the direction given by this Court in the earlier revision petition. But it must be held that the petitioner came for amendment at a belated stage and such laches on the part of the petitioner had caused harassment to .the adverse party. 8. But it must be held that the petitioner came for amendment at a belated stage and such laches on the part of the petitioner had caused harassment to .the adverse party. 8. In the result, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside directing the Munsif, Bettiah, to allow the amendment sought for from the side of the petitioner on condition of payment of Rs. 300.00 within a period of three weeks from this date and the cost so deposited should be disbursed in favour of the contesting defendants.