JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jajpur in Title Appeal No. 43 of 1998 dismissing an application under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. 2. The facts leading to this application are that one Uzir Monammed had two sons, namely, Sk. Budhu and Sk. Niamatulla. Sk. 3udnu died ssueiess while Sk. Niamatulla had two sons, namely Sk. Mohammed Bashirul Haque ana Sk. Jariruddin Haque. Sk. Mohammed Bashirul Haque also died issueless and the plaintiff is the only of Sk. Jaisuruddin. The petitioner (plaintiff in Court below) claims that he is the only son surviving heir and successor of Sk. Uzir Mohammed, in the pleadings the plaintiff made averments that Sk. Budhu on 30.6.1926 gifted Ac. 1.05 decimals of land to Sk. Basiruddin. who is also known as Sk. Bashirul Haque. After the death of Sk. Bashirul Haque, in the year 1939, i.e. on 8.7.1939, Sk. Budhu again sold the said land to Arjana Bibi. Thus, it was pleaded that the sale deed dated 8.7.1939 executed in favour of Arjana Bibi was not a valid document of transfer, inasmuch as the earlier gift deed dated 30.6.1926 executed in favour of Sk. Jasiruddin had not been set aside. 3. The plea of the present opposite parties before the trial Court was that the alleged gift deed dated 30.6.1926 had never been acted upon Basing upon this specifically an issue was framed under issue No. 2, i.e. whether the gift deed dated 30.6.1929 executed by Sk. Budhu in favour of Mohammed Bashirul Haque has been acted upon? This issue was answered against the plaintiff and ultimately the suit was dismissed on contest against which an appeal was preferred. At the stage of appeal, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking incorporation in the plaint the averment that Sk. Budhu adopted Bashirul Haque alias Basiruddin from his childhood as his son and gifted the property to him in the year 1926 and the donee accepted the same thereby becoming the sole owner of the said property. After the death of Bashirul Haque alias Basiruddin, his wife Arjana Bibi and the plaintiff became the co-owners. It is was therefore stated that Sk. After the death of Bashirul Haque alias Basiruddin, his wife Arjana Bibi and the plaintiff became the co-owners. It is was therefore stated that Sk. Budhu without setting aside the gift deed of the year 1926 made in favour of Basiruddin could not have sold the same to Arjana Bibi. 5. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties further submits that if the amendment as prayed is allowed, same would lead to a de novo trial which will definitely jeopardise the interest of the opposite parties. 6. In course of hearing my attention was drawn by Mr. Ershad, learned Counsel for the petitioner to a decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1979 S.C. 551 Ishwardas v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., wherein it was held as follows: There is no impediment or bar against an appellate Court permitting amendment of pleadings so as to enable a party to raise a new plea. All that is necessary is that the Appellate Court should observe the well known principles subject to which amendments of pleadings are usually granted. Naturally, one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted is the delay in making the application seeking such amendment and, if made at the appellate stage, the reason, why it was not sought in the trial Court.... Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the decision reported in Bano Gope Vs. Suraj Singh and Others wherein it was held that the prayer for amendments was allowed at very late stages, sometimes even at the appellate or the second appellate stage. Therefore, a prayer for amendment cannot be branded as mala fide on the mere ground that it is made at a late stage. But the fact remains that the Court must be satisfied about the conditions attached to Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure for allowing the amendment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further refers to a decision of this Court reported in 60 (1985) CLT 353 Somanath Mohapatra v. Debananda Samantaray and Ors., wherein relying upon several decisions including a decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 551 Ishwardas v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further refers to a decision of this Court reported in 60 (1985) CLT 353 Somanath Mohapatra v. Debananda Samantaray and Ors., wherein relying upon several decisions including a decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 551 Ishwardas v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. held that it was open to the appellate Court to allow amendment of pleadings in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, if the well recognised principles in the matter of amendment of pleadings are satisfied in the case. 7. The well recognised principles are that if the amendment entirely changes the nature and character of a suit or introduces a fresh cause of action or being a belated one, deprives a litigant of a valuable right which has accrued to him on account of lapse of time under the law of limitation, the same should not ordinarily be allowed. At the same time where a proposed amendment has the effect of advancing the cause of justice instead of defeating it and does not cause prejudice to any party, Courts should not be reluctant on technical grounds to throw away the amendment to the pleadings where the proposed amendments have not the effect of changing the character and nature of the suit fundamentally and the case to be made out after the proposed amendments is not inconsistent with the case originally made out in the plaint (See Laxminarayan alias L. Behera v. Tahebul Masjid reported in 45 (1978) CLT 141). In this regard I may refer to a decision of the apex Court reported in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., wherein the apex Court held that the defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the case made out in the written statement and substitute an entirely different and new case. In the case of Jagannath Bardhan (dead) after him Sakhi Bewa and Others Vs. Kailash Bardhan and Others this Court held that it is well settled in law that an application for amendment has to be liberally allowed and the Courts are to take a lenient view in the matter of entertaining a prayer for amendment either of the plaint or of the written statement. Kailash Bardhan and Others this Court held that it is well settled in law that an application for amendment has to be liberally allowed and the Courts are to take a lenient view in the matter of entertaining a prayer for amendment either of the plaint or of the written statement. It is needless to say, an amendment can be filed at any stage of the proceeding and delay is not always a factor to refuse the prayer for amendment. It is Court's discretion but this discretion is not absolute. In the aforesaid decision their Lordships also referred to the case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others wherein it was held that all the amendments are to be allowed if they satisfy two conditions, namely, if it does not cause injustice to the other side and if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 7. Oh examining the present case in the light of principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, and on perusal of the proposed amendment, I am of the view that a complete inconsistent plea is going to be introduced which was not earlier in the suit. The fact of adoption sought to be introduced at the appellate stage by way of amendment of the plaint if allowed, would certainly cause prejudice to the interest of the present opposite parties, because it will ultimately lead to a de novo trial of the suit. That apart, no reason has been ascribed by the petitioner as to why the amendment was not sought for before the trial Court. This being the position, the revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.