JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - Defendants in the trial court have filed this Revision against the order dated 30-11-1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore, allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. 2. The learned Counsel Shri J.R. Dash appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, submits that in the suit, originally opposite parties had pleaded that they belong to Dayabhag school of law. Subsequently during pendency of the suit, an application was filed for amendment of the plaint stating that opposite parties belong to Mitakshara school of law and by mistake in the plaint it had been mentioned as Dayabhag. The said application for amendment was rejected by the trial court against which the Plaintiffs - opposite parties filed Civil Revision No. 543 of 1989 before this Court. By order dated 27-8-90 the Revision was allowed and subsequently the prayer for amendment was carried out in the plaint. The Plaintiffs again sought for amendment. which runs as follows: The predecessor -in-interest of the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 2, Late Rajanikant came to live on his ancestral property at village Gudapahi in 1940 and started performing marriages, obsequies, birth ceremonies etc. through local Brahmins and procedure as per the local custom and with passage of time wholly abandoned the Bengali School and performed all rites and customs as per Utkaliya school and accordingly, we the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 2 also followed the Same and went out of Dayabhag school of law by adopting the mitakshara school of law. An objection was filed to the said proposed amendment on several grounds, but the same having been allowed, the present Revision has been filed. 3. Shri Dash raised the following objections to the amendment: (a) The present amendment sought for was available to be pleaded at the time when the Plaintiffs approached the trial court earlier for amendment of the plaint stating that they belong to Mitakshara school of law. (b) The amendment petition having been filed almost eight years after filing of the suit, the same should have been rejected on the ground that at a belated stage such petition is not maintainable. (c) By introducing the amendment, a new plea has been taken which is not permissible under law. (b) The amendment petition having been filed almost eight years after filing of the suit, the same should have been rejected on the ground that at a belated stage such petition is not maintainable. (c) By introducing the amendment, a new plea has been taken which is not permissible under law. (d) By such amendment the Plaintiffs- opposite parties intend to take benefit of the Daya bhag school of law as well as Mitakshara school of law and therefore, such amendment could not have been allowed. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for opposite parties submits that the proposed amendment in question is only an elucidation of the averment that the Plaintiffs belong to Mitakshara school of law. Such elucidation was necessary as the Plaintiffs are Bengalis and they belong to Dayabhag school of law. Explanation as to how they adopted Mitakshara school of law was necessary to be pleaded in the plaint for proper adjudication of the case. He further contended that there was no delay in filing the application as the matter was pending before this Court on two occasions and the suit could not proceed. The proposed amendment does not change the nature and character of the suit, but only explains the circumstances under which the Plaintiffs adopted Mitakshara school of law. 5. So far as the delay in filing the application for amendment is concerned, it appears that the first application for amendment was rejected by the trial court against which Civil Revision No. 543 of 1989 was filed before this Court and the same was disposed of on 27-8-90. Again on 1-12-90 when the suit was posted for hearing, the conducting lawyer did not attend the court in spite of filing hazira and the suit was dismissed for default. On 7-12-90 a petition under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. was filed for setting aside the dismissal order, which was rejected by the trial court on 18-8-93. Against the said order the Plaintiff approached this Court and the suit was restored by order of this Court on 9-7-98 and the present application for amendment was filed on 18-11-98. Therefore, there has not been any delay in filing the application for amendment. Apart from that, the application could have been filed at any stage of the proceeding, as has been held in a series of decisions by this Court. 6. Therefore, there has not been any delay in filing the application for amendment. Apart from that, the application could have been filed at any stage of the proceeding, as has been held in a series of decisions by this Court. 6. Some decisions have been cited by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties with regard to circumstances under which amendment can be allowed. This Court in decision reported in Kanhu Charan Mohanty Vs. Prafulla Chandra Mishra has held that discretion vests with the court to allow the prayer for amendment and therefore, as a general rule, leave to amend the pleading should be granted in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceeding. Grant of leave to amend the pleadings is the rule and refusal is an exception. However, while liberally exercising the discretion care should be taken to see that injustice and prejudice of irremediable character are not inflicted on the other side. Prayer for amendment can be refused in the following circumstances: (i) Where it is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties; (ii) Where the Plaintiffs suit would be wholly displaced by the proposed amendment; (iii) Where the effect of amendment would take away from the Defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time; (iv) Where the amendment would introduce totally different, new and inconsistent case and the application is made at a late stage of the proceeding; and (v) Where the application for amendment is not made in good faith. So far as the present case is concerned the Plaintiffs are Bengalis and ordinarily governed by Dayabhag school of law. Once the Plaintiffs claim that they belong to Mitakshara school of law, it is necessary to explain as to how they have adopted Mitakshara school of law. It is a fact that while praying for amendment on the earlier occasion, Plaintiffs could have also indicated the circumstances under which they adopted Mitakshara school of law, but that cannot be a reason to reject a prayer for amendment as the same has not caused any prejudice to the Defendants - Petitioners. The apprehension of Shri J.R. Dash, learned Counsel for Petitioners, is that if amendment is allowed, Plaintiffs may claim the benefits under Dayabhag school of law as well as under Mitakshara school of law. The apprehension of Shri J.R. Dash, learned Counsel for Petitioners, is that if amendment is allowed, Plaintiffs may claim the benefits under Dayabhag school of law as well as under Mitakshara school of law. The said apprehension of the learned Counsel is without any basis, as in the proposed amendment it is stated that the predecessors-in-interest of the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 2, Late Rajanikant came to live in his ancestral property at village Gudapahi in 1940 and started performing marriages, obsequies, birth ceremonies. etc. through local Brahmins and procedure as per the local customs and with passage of time wholly abandoned the Bengali school and performed all rites and customs as per Utkaliya school. Once the Plaintiffs pleaded that they have abandoned the Bengali school, they cannot claim any benefit under the Dayabhag school of law. Moreover, having pleaded that they belong to the Mitakshara school of law, the question of claiming any benefit under the Dayabhag school of law does not arise. The proposed amendment appears to be only an explanation to the averments made earlier that the Plaintiffs belong to Mitakshara school of law and does not introduce a new case or plea, so as to cause any prejudice to the Defendants-petitioners. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for Petitioners. The Revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed