A. LALA, J. ( 1 ) - This application for revision is made challenging the order No. 29 dated 13th March, 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah in rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the appeal before the first Appellate Court arose from an order of dismissal of the suit by the Court of first instance on 31st May, 1997. It appears that the Court of first instance observed that the plaintiff did not make out such case to the effect that the second nomination of Fakir Mahammed was false on the ground of fraud, mis-representation, coercion, undue influence etc. When the employee concerned executed the second nomination form in cancellation to the first one and the authority passed the order of cancellation of first information and recorded the name of second nominee, unless the second nomination is cancelled (page 16 begins) the claim of the plaintiff cannot be allowed. Since the plaintiff has not prayed for cancellation of second nomination form, Court cannot give such relief to her. An appeal was preferred from such order. During the pendency of such appeal, an application was made by the plaintiff by saying: 'that inadvertently the plaintiff did not seek for declaration for cancellation of the second nomination obtained by the defendant No. 2 which the deceased Fakir was on death bed and in the hospital. ? ( 2 ) THEREFORE, an amendment was sought to incorporate part of fraud etc. and relief for declaration was prayed for. The Appellate Court disallowed this application by saying as: ?so, it goes to show that the cause of action of the plaintiff in respect of the 2nd declaration form had arisen long before 21. 2. 89 and in that view of the matter it cannot but be said that by way of the proposed amendment the appellant/plaintiff seeks to introduce a new cause of action which now stands barred by limitation. ? ( 3 ) THE Appellate Court was pleased to rely upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1977 Cal 189 (Kanailal Das and Anr. ? ( 3 ) THE Appellate Court was pleased to rely upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1977 Cal 189 (Kanailal Das and Anr. v. Jiban Kanai Das and Anr.) wherein it was held that the amendment of a claim or relief is barred by limitation when the amendment is sought to be made should not be allowed to defeat a legal right accrued except when such consideration is outweighed by the special circumstances of the case. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff petitioner cited a judgment reported in AIR 1979 SC 551 (Ishardas v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. ). In paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment it was held that there is no prohibition against an Appellate Court permitting an amendment at the appellate stage merely because the necessary material is not already before the Court. He further cited a judgment reported in 2000 1 SCC 712 (B. K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Anr. ). Again it was held in paragraph 4 therein that the general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not be allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred. But it is well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. He also cited another judgment reported in 2001 2 SCC 472 (Raghu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and Ors.) whereunder I find the Supreme Court observed that the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case. The plea of limitation of dispute could be made as a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case. The plea of limitation of dispute could be made as a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 contended before this Court that the defendant-respondent No. 2 herein was made a party in the writ petition on the self same cause of fraud in getting certain monetary benefit from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation when the writ Court felt that this issue cannot be decided by such Corporation but a Civil Suit is the proper proceeding. The operative part of the order is incorporated in paragraph 11 of the plaint. In spite of the same, neither the question of fraud was revised nor any specific issue was framed. Now, at this belated stage, the amendment could not be allowed. He also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1977 Cal 189 (supra ). According to him, no diligence in respect of such point was taken. A considerable period was lapsed. This cause of action, if allowed to be taken, will be a new cause of action. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, I am of the view that it is a well-settled principle by now that the amendment of the pleading can be allowed at a just cause provided the same is necessary for the purpose of real question of controversy between the parties. It is also well settled that if such cause is necessary to be adjudicated in spite of having hit by limitation then the amendment will be allowed keeping the question of limitation open for appropriate Court to adjudicate the same. Therefore, there is no dispute in respect of such principle nor the respondent raised any point to that extent. But I have to adjudicate at this stage what is the appeal about. The appeal is in respect of dismissal of the order of the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff-petitioner has not prayed for cancellation of second nomination form etc. by taking a ground of fraud, mis-representation, coercion and undue influence etc. and an appeal is pending from such order. The appeal is in respect of dismissal of the order of the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff-petitioner has not prayed for cancellation of second nomination form etc. by taking a ground of fraud, mis-representation, coercion and undue influence etc. and an appeal is pending from such order. The appeal is a matter of right of the parties and continuance of the process. Therefore, it is obvious that such question will be germane for the purpose of due consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Therefore, if in the midst of hearing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is disallowed, the same will be fatal even to the respondent in taking defence in the appeal. No fruitful purpose can be sub-served in one hand keeping the appeal pending and on the other hand, disallowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, either the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure will be disallowed so as to appeal being independent cause of action. Alternatively, appeal will be allowed with a leave to make such application for amendment in the Court below. If the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is disallowed keeping the appeal pending which had been intended to make on the self-same point, then there would be every possibility of conflicting opinions of the Court. In other words, dismissal of the application is as good as dismissal of appeal being infractuous. Therefore, I conclude the revisional application by holding a view that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been dismissed, be re-heard by the first Appellate Court alongwith the appeal by taking all pros and cons of the matter as agitated hereunder. The Court is free to consider all points. ( 7 ) THUS, I dispose of this revisional application by setting aside the order of rejection passed by the first Appellate Court in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure at this stage, but keeping all the points particularly raised by the contesting respondent to be decided at the time of final disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the application as made before the lower Appellate Court got its life of adjudication by the lower Appellate Court finally at the time of disposal of the appeal. The application will be heard as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs. It is recorded hereunder that no lower Court Record has been brought before this Court. Application disposed of of