G. ROHINI, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant is the petitioner in this revision Petition, which is directed against the order dated 17-1-2001 in I. A. No. 2041 of 2000 in O. S. No. 377 of 1994 on the file of the court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad dismissing the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of cpc for amendment of the written statement. ( 2 ) THE respondent herein filed o. S. No. 377 of 1994 for eviction of the defendant-Revision Petitioner, from the suit schedule premises. The suit is based on the lease deed dated 1-2-1991, in pursuance of which the defendant was alleged to have been inducted into possession. The defendant filed written statement on 18-1-1996 and the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was closed on 7-9-2000. Thereafter the defendant examined two witnesses and while the matter was coming up for further evidence on behalf of the defendant, i. A. No. 2041 of 2000 has been filed by he defendant seeking amendment of the written statement by taking a plea that the lease deed dated 1-2-1991, marked as ex. A-1 is manipulated and fabricated document by forging the signature of the defendant. The said application was contested by the plaintiff counter contending inter alia that There are no bona fides on the part of the defendant in filing the application at a belated stage and it is only an attempt to cause further delay in the suit proceedings. ( 3 ) THE Court below having heard both sides by order dated 17-1-2001 dismissed the said application holding that the proposed amendment to the written statement is nothing but abuse of process of law and only to protract the litigation and the defendant cannot be allowed to amend the written statement at a belated stage. Aggrieved by the said order the defendant has come up with the present Civil Revision Petition. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. Ramanarayana, who submitted that while considering an application for amendment of the pleadings the Court shall examine whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and on a plain reading of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC the application for amendment of pleadings cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. The learned counsel contends that since the plea taken by the defendant by way of amendment to the written statement relates to the genuineness of the lease deed, which is the basis for the suit, the Court below ought to have allowed the proposed amendment. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on a division Bench judgment of this Court in state of A. P. v. Zal (1964 (2) ALT 421) wherein it is held that under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC the predominant consideration shall be that the amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. ( 5 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the conduct of the defendant in filing the application at the fag end of the suit proceedings is not bona fide and the proposed amendment cannot be said to be for setting at rest the controversy between the parties to the suit. According to the learned counsel for the respondent if the amendment is allowed the clock has to be set back and it would result in unnecessary delay in completion of the suit proceedings. Accordingly he contends that the Court below has rightly rejected the amendment holding that it is only abuse of process of law and therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. ( 6 ) ORDER 6 Rule 17 of CPC which deals with the amendment of pleadings runs as follows:"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. " ( 7 ) IT can be seen that Rule 17 consists of two parts. While the first part confers a discretion on the Court to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceeding on such terms as the Court may think just, the second part specifies that all such amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determination of real questions in controversy between the parties shall be made. While the first part confers a discretion on the Court to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceeding on such terms as the Court may think just, the second part specifies that all such amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determination of real questions in controversy between the parties shall be made. Thus it is clear that while considering an application for amendment of pleadings a duty is cast on the Court to examine whether amendment proposed is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. In the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, if the court concludes positively, then the amendment may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. Delay in filing the application by itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the proposed amendment. However, it is essential to bear in mind the well settled principles that such amendment shall not cause prejudice to the other side, which cannot be compensated in costs and it does not defeat the legal right accrued to the other party by lapse of time. It is also necessary to examine whether the proposed amendment alters the character of the suit itself or seeks to introduce a new cause of action in which event the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion to permit the amendment. It is well settled that the Court would generally adopt a liberal approach in exercising the discretion so as to do justice between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the suit is for eviction, basing on a lease deed. It is at the stage of trial and the evidence of the defendant is still going on. The defendant sought amendment of the written statement on the specific ground that the lease deed which forms the basis of the suit is fabricated and forged and that he came to know of the said fact only when he obtained certified copy of the document while the trial was going on. He also explained the circumstances under which he could not examine the document while filing the written statement initially. He also explained the circumstances under which he could not examine the document while filing the written statement initially. Curiously the court below without examining the question whether the amendment proposed by the defendant is necessary for determining the question in controversy, rejected the application on the ground that the reasons stated by the defendant appear to be a lame excuse and observing that it is only an attempt to protract the litigation. ( 9 ) THE plea sought to be raised by way of amendment i. e. , the lease deed marked as ex. A-1 is not the same document which was actually executed between the parties, certainly involves an issue which is necessary for determining the real question in controversy in the suit. The Court below in my view is not justified in concluding that it is a lame excuse. As a matter of fact at that stage it is not open to the court to express any opinion on merits as to the correctness of the amendment sought. On a perusal of the order under Revision, it is clear that the court below disallowed the application merely on the ground that it is filed at a belated stage. In the facts and circumstances of the case the application filed by the defendant cannot be termed as mala fide on the ground that it is made belatedly. As stated above, mere delay in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground for rejecting the proposed amendment, particularly in the absence of any irretrievable prejudice to the defendant (sic. plaintiff ). In the instant case the respondents-plaintiffs in their counter stated that the amendment sought at a belated stage, if allowed, would result in serious injustice to them, since the witnesses may have to be recalled causing unnecessary delay. That cannot be taken as a prejudice, which cannot be compensated in costs. It is well settled that amendments should be refused only where the amendment would cause injury to the other party, which could not be compensated in costs. Therefore, the court below ought to have allowed the amendment on imposing certain costs on the defendant. That cannot be taken as a prejudice, which cannot be compensated in costs. It is well settled that amendments should be refused only where the amendment would cause injury to the other party, which could not be compensated in costs. Therefore, the court below ought to have allowed the amendment on imposing certain costs on the defendant. ( 10 ) IN B. K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran pillai the Supreme Court while considering the correctness of the order of the High court in confirming the rejection of amendment of written statement by the trial court, reviewed all the relevant decisions and held as follows:"the principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment the other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original Us was raised or defence taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. Proposed amendment 1. (2000) 1 SCC 712 . should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by costs. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates (sic results) in defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. The delay in filing the petition for amendment of the pleadings should be property compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement. " ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated supra, it must be held that the amendment proposed to the written statement is necessary for determining the real question in controversy. " ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated supra, it must be held that the amendment proposed to the written statement is necessary for determining the real question in controversy. Hence the order under revision is set aside and the defendant- revision Petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement subject to the condition that the defendant-Revision petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 (Rupees one thousand only) as costs to the plaintiff- respondent within two weeks from today. ( 12 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.