JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J. (Oral):- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.3.1998 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Dehra whereby application of the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. The material and relevant facts are that the plaintiff has instituted a suit for declaration that he is in actual and physical possession of the land comprising in khata No. 11 min, khatauni No. 124 (more specifically detailed in the heading of the plaint) as owner to the extent of 5/8th share and is tenant under the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) 2 and 3 to the extent of 3/8 share and the entries in the revenue record showing defendant No. 1 in possession of the land are liable to be removed from the records and for permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from interfering in the suit land in any manner. In the alternative relief of possession has also been prayed for. 3. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CP.C. for amendment of the plaint whereby para 3 of the plaint was sought to be amended so as to include the averment that the plaintiff is continuing in actual and physical possession of entire suit land since 1950 when he was inducted as a tenant by the then owner Bhagat Ram, son of Shiv Dayal on payment of rent. The application was opposed for the defendants and the learned trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that there was absence of cause of action qua the tenancy plea and deficiency has not been made good within a period of three years from the date defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed written statements and that after lapse of nine years the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. cannot be allowed, and accordingly dismissed the applications. Hence the present revision petition by the plaintiffs. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 5. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as follows:- "R.17. Hence the present revision petition by the plaintiffs. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 5. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as follows:- "R.17. Amendment of pleadings:- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties." 6. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and no such terms as may be just, and all such amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, shall be allowed. These powers are undoubtedly wide and can be exercised at any stag of the proceedings if the interest of justice so requires and in such eventuality must be exercised liberally. However, while exercising such powers, the courts cannot permit setting up of a new case and the proposed amendments should not cause prejudice to the other party which is incapable of being compensated in costs. 7. In the instant case the claim of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit land, a part of which is possessed by him as owner and the remaining part as a tenant. It is specifically so averred in para 2 of the plaint. Thus, basic case of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit land partly as an owner as he has acquired ownership rights in the suit land to the extent of 5/8th share under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, but the remaining 3/8th share remained under his cultivating possession as a tenant. By the amendment what he wants to plead is that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit land by one Bhagat Ram on payment of rent in the year 1950 and thereafter he continued in possession of the suit land. Thus, what is sought to be pleaded is as to when and by whom the tenancy and created in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, what is sought to be pleaded is as to when and by whom the tenancy and created in favour of the plaintiff. The plea, thus, is only clarificatory in nature and not contrary to any averment already made in the plaint. It is material question in a claim of tenancy as to when and by whom a person was inducted as a tenant and under whom he is holding land as a tenant. Thus, by the amendment, the plea of tenancy already taken in the plaint is sought to be elaborated. The proposed amendment does not in any way substitute a new case in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the proposed amendment deserves to be allowed. 8. By allowing this amendment which is only clarificatory in nature, no prejudice whatsoever is going to be caused to the defendants nor such amendment is going to take away any vested right of the defendants. Therefore, the delay in filing the application was not material. More so, when no evidence appears to have been led by the parties in the case as yet. 9. In view of the above discussion that impugned order refusing the amendment is un-sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 10. As a result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is not aside and the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 11. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 29.12.1999 when the learned trial Court will afford an opportunity to the defendants to file their written statement(s) to the amended plaint which is already on record, if so advised and thereafter proceed to try and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. 12. Be it stated that the suit is pending for more than a decade now and is still at the initial stage. Therefore, the learned trial Judge shall take up this case for hearing on priority basis and make efforts to dispose it of at the earliest prefera!4y within six months. Records of the trial court to returned forthwith. -