JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition has been preferred by plaintiff against the order dated 11.10.1999 of the Additional Civil Judge (JD) Jaipur City (West) in Civil Suit No. 247/99, whereby her application u/O.6 R. 17 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiff instituted suit on 2.6.1999 for declaring her owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendant from dispossessing her from the suit property. Temporary injunction had also been sought. The defendant has not filed written statement. However an application has been moved by the plaintiff u/O. 6 R. 17 CPC for showing correct description, location or direction of the suit property which were inadvertently stated in the plaint due to mistake and not having proper knowledge thereto. It was contended that the suit was at the initial stage and written statement has not yet been filed, hence no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties if amendment as to the correction in the description of the suit property in the plaint is allowed as it was necessary for deciding the real controversy. 3. The defendant contested the amendment application on the grounds inter alia that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff would change nature and character of the suit besides scope with regard to the relief which she sought in the plaint and hence it cannot be permitted. The trial Court by its impugned order dated 11.10.1999 dismissed plaintiff's application with cost of Rs. 250/- on-the ground that it had been filed mala fidely and the averment made therein cannot be relied upon. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the conclusions drawn up by the trial Court in the impugned order. Prima facie I am of the opinion that trial Court has failed to appreciate and consider the circumstances in the context of the factual matrix of the case that the amendment was sought for at the initial stage in the interest of justice, and it was in conformity with the provisions of 0.6 R. 17 CPC, which empowers the Court at any stage to allow either of the parties to amend its pleadings in such matter and on such terms as may be just, and such amendment shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 5. 5. The law is well settled that it is open to the Court even to permit amendment at the stage due to subsequent events which are germane to the controversy, and the amendment may be permitted if it is shown:-(1) that relief claimed ordinarily has become in proper; (2) that it is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order ti cut short litigation; (3) that it is necessary to permit amendment in order to ensure complete justice between the parties. 6. In the instant case, admittedly the suit was at the initial stage. The ground on which the plaintiff has sought amendment in the plaint, was that due to mistake bona fidely on having no proper knowledge of the location and directions in the description of the suit property had been typed wrongly in the plaint. 7. After having made proper site inspection of the suit property in consultation with persons of neighbourhood and identification of property, it had become necessary for her to seek amendment in the plaint with a view to state correct description of the suit property and for which she moved amendment application. It has also been stated that amendment if permitted would not cause any prejudice to the defendant nor would it change nature and character of the suit in order to decide real controversy at issue. 8. Prima facie I am of the view that since the suit is at the initial stage, there is no justification for the trial Court to have disbelieved version of the plaintiff and merely because she had been living in the property itself for last couple of years, would not disentitle her, in my view, to seek amendment in the description of the suit property so as to enable her to give correct description of the plaintiff. Since the Court has its discretion to permit amendment at any stage of the proceedings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and proper, such amendment should be permitted for the purpose of determining real question at controversy between the parties. The Court has to see bona fide of the party seeking amendment. Since the Court has its discretion to permit amendment at any stage of the proceedings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and proper, such amendment should be permitted for the purpose of determining real question at controversy between the parties. The Court has to see bona fide of the party seeking amendment. The trial Court in my view has gravely erred in not allowing the plaintiff to seek amendment in plaint since the amendment sought has pertained to the description of the suit property, which due to some inadvertence on the part of her counsel had been incorrectly described. The law is well settled that the party should not suffer for any bona fide mistake of others particularly when written statement has not been filed. Hence, in my view no prejudice would be caused to the defendant and the suit being at the initial stage, amendment should have been allowed. I am fortified from the decisions in Kalyan v. Hiralal, 1997 (3) WLC 1729 : 1997(1) DNJ (Raj.) 296 , Sarfaraj v. Smt. Laduri, 1999(2) WLC 393 : 1999(1) DNJ (Raj.) 108 : (2000) 1 SCC 712 . 9. I have examined ratio of aforesaid decisions, which are attracted to the instant case. The trial Court has not appreciated the principle of law laid down in aforesaid decision in its true perspective. Bona fide mistake as to the identification of the suit property can only be rectified by way of amendment. In the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when no written statement has been filed and the suit is at the initial stage, no niala fide can be attributed to the plaintiff. The amendment should be allowed in pleading in appropriate cases to avoid uncalled for and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 10. As a result of the above discussion, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.10.1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) Jaipur City in civil suit No. 247/99 is set aside and consequently application of the plaintiff u/O.6 R. 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint stands allowed and accordingly the trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs.Revision Allowed. *******