1. Sub-Judge (CJM) Kargil vide his order of May 15,1996 allowed amendment of Plaint in Civil Suit titled Mohammad and ors vs. Rustum and others No 13 of 1986, on the file of Sub-Judge, (CJMs) court Kargil, so as to correctly describe the alleged source of water flow to plaintiffs land from spring Yakus in­stead of spring Dasus and further to mention survey Nos of such land irrigated from flowing waters of Yakus spring, besides describing on spot lands of defendants being allegedly irri­gated by flowing waters of Nala Khurboo (as shown in Bundaubaste Vasil Apashie). 2. Respondents counsel failed to appear on the last date on 13.12.2000 when the counsel for the petitioner was heard. 3. The impugned order is under challenge, as given in the revision memo and canvassed by the counsel on the grounds that by allowing the application and the proposed amendment, na­ture of suit and cause of action therefore is changed. The rights of defendant to use water from Yakus Cheshma is taken away. It is not the case of typographical error and in fact un­der the grab of the amendment, fresh suit is al­lowed. 4. Respondents to this revision and plain­tiffs before the trial court, have filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of their pleaded right to use water of the spring by pre­scription and under custom, to the exclusions of all others including the defendants and to restrain the defendants from taking and using the water of the spring and for a further decla­ration that the orders passed in conflict with the above prayed relief for declaration and in­junction are nonest. The plaintiffs had filed a suit earlier which was permitted to be with­drawn with liberty to file fresh suit. The amend­ment prayed for stand allowed by the trial court on the ground that instead of mentioning Yakus Cheshma due to clerical mistake the Spring has been described as Dasus Cheshma. The rea­son therefore being conflicting and confusing revenue extracts issued by the revenue author­ities and neglect and erroneous descriptions by their counsel. The trial court has also found that the lands alleged to be irrigated by the water of the Cheshma are sought to be described by re­ference to correct survey Nos, irrespective of Vasila Apashie entries from Yakus spring on spot. The trial court has also found that the lands alleged to be irrigated by the water of the Cheshma are sought to be described by re­ference to correct survey Nos, irrespective of Vasila Apashie entries from Yakus spring on spot. The other ground pressed in service for amendment is that the proforma defendants have made admission of plaintiffs suit, there­fore, the plaintiffs are within their rights to rely on and plead this admission. The defendants/ revision petitioners resisted the motion on the ground that the application for amendments is misconceived, belated and filed with malafides with a view to defeat the rights of the depend­ants. If the amendment is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit and introduce a new case. Even, nature of the suit is likely to be altered. 5. The learned Trial Judge has examined the matter within conspectus of order VI Rule 17 C.P.C and in its discretion allowed the amendment after noting that the amendment is not to change nature of the suit and instead the real controversy between the parties is focused by the amendment. By mentioning the survey Nos of the lands dependent on the Cheshma for irrigation the erroneous description of the property would be rectified. Merely because, the amendment has been made at a late stage, same cannot be a ground perse to throw away the proposed amendment and turn down the prayer. Neither the cause of action nor the na­ture of the suit is changed. By the proposed amendment property is correctly described. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C reads as under:- "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. The amendment of the pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, pro­vided the manner and terms thereof are just. The all important requirement is that the amend­ment is necessary for determining the real ques­tions in controversy between the parties. The amendment of the pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, pro­vided the manner and terms thereof are just. The all important requirement is that the amend­ment is necessary for determining the real ques­tions in controversy between the parties. Ordinarily, the amendments have to be allowed for determining the real questions in controversy, interese the parties, unless the par­ties seeking amendment acts with malice or by allowing the amendment otherside would be prejudiced to an extent that he/she cannot be compensated with costs. After all the rules of procedure are hand made of justice. Party can­not be refused relief due to some mistake, neg­ligence, inadvertance or even infraction of rules of procedure. However, negligent or careless may have been the omission and however the late the proposed amendment be, the amend­ment has to be allowed, so long it does not cause injustice to the otherside. If a party is unaware of the existing state-of-affairs to make the aver­ments, which he lateron seeks to incorporate by amendment, so as to bring the facts and cir­cumstances in accord with truly prevailing facts and circumstances relateable to the real ques­tions of controversy between the parties, the amendment cannot be refused merely because the otherside opposes it. 7. In this case what is prayed for by way of amendment is to correctly describe and identify the spring when Vasil Apashie wrongly named this spring as Cheshma Dasus and further to cor­rectly identify and describe lands irrigated and fed water by Cheshma Yakus with reference to relevant Khasra Nos. and other revenue record. The reason given for wrongly describing this land in plaint is the conflicting revenue extracts issued by the authorities. The wrong description of Cheshma Dasus instead of its correct description as Yakus is alleged to be primarily due to typographical error/clerical mistake and negligence and inadvertance of the counsel. 8. In C.M. Vereekutty vs. C.M. Vereekutty (AIR 1981 SC 1533), their Lordships in the mat­ter of an amendment to the plaint in the context of order VI Rule 17 CPC, observed:- ".....The plaintiff claimed that some prop­erties had not been fully and correctly de­scribed in the original plaint schedule and that due to ignorance some properties had been omitted. 8. In C.M. Vereekutty vs. C.M. Vereekutty (AIR 1981 SC 1533), their Lordships in the mat­ter of an amendment to the plaint in the context of order VI Rule 17 CPC, observed:- ".....The plaintiff claimed that some prop­erties had not been fully and correctly de­scribed in the original plaint schedule and that due to ignorance some properties had been omitted. The High Court allowed the application for amendment of the plaint and we do not see any justification for in­terfering with the decision of the High Court allowing the amendmen of the plaint..... Instead of the parties continuing to wilfully agitate the question of the identity of every item of property in the final decree proceedings, we think that it is desirable that the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint now itself so that the defendant may raise whatever objections he may seek to raise in the written statement to be filed by him....." 9. The amendment targetted as it is at cor­rection of clerical mistake, and description and identification of the subject of suit cannot be said to change the nature of suit or to introduce a new cause of action. If a mistake in describ­ing the subject matter of the suit is due to negli­gence or misunderstanding of a counsel and the amendment allowed rectifies such mistake same would not effect the merits of the case so as to introduce, a fresh case or cause of action or change the nature of the suit. By the amend­ment mis-description of the subject matter of the suit has been allowed to be corrected in or­der to focus on the real issues interse the parties, for determination, on adjudication. With benefit reference can be made to M/S jesh Behari Patel case (AIR 1974 Patna 18 and Achhuta Mallick vs. Magu Mallick AIR 1974 Orissa 183). 10. The contention of the learned counsel that by allowing the amendment, defendants rights to irrigate the Stands from water of Cheshma Yakus are taken away and their case is prejudiced, cannot be countenanced. The court cannot go into and give a final decision on the merits of the pleas incorporated in plaint by amendment at any interim stage of the suit proceedings. Whether the plea(s) putforth in the amendment can succeed ultimately or not, is a matter of proof on inquiry pursued under Codal provisions. The court cannot go into and give a final decision on the merits of the pleas incorporated in plaint by amendment at any interim stage of the suit proceedings. Whether the plea(s) putforth in the amendment can succeed ultimately or not, is a matter of proof on inquiry pursued under Codal provisions. Court is to judge the pro­posed amendment, for limited purpose. It is to look at it as well from the stand-point of malafide or over-reaching the Court. Similarly the submission of the counsel that instead of allowing amendment to the suit, the respond­ents should file a fresh suit to agitate their rights, cannot be entertained. After all one of the pur­pose to allowing amendment(s) is to avoid the multiplicity of suits/proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, allowing the amendment for the purpose indicated falls within the conspectus of law laid down in per­mitting amendment of plaint. In Nichhalbhai Vallabhai and ors. vs. Jaswantlal Zinabhi and others, (AIR 1966 SC 997), Shri RamaswamiJ. Speaking for the court observed: "......and it was, therefore, a proper case in which the court allowed the plaint to be amended. The reason is that if the amend­ment is refused the plaintiff may have to bring another suit and the object of the rule for allowing amendments to the plaint is to avoid multiplicity of suits. The present case falls within the principle laid down by this court in LJ. Leach and Co. Ltd. vs. Jafdine Skinner and Co. 1957 SCR 438:(s) AIR 1957 Sc 357)..." In result the impugned order of allow­ing the amendment by Sub-Judge (CJM) Kargil in his discretion is not found to suffer from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity. The or­der is just and necessitated to determine the real questions in controversy, interse the parties to the suit. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Inform the court below of this or­ der and despatch record to the trial court.