Judgment :- 1.The plaintiff, in the suit, filed an application to amend the plaint and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 19.12.2002. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition has been preferred. Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners and the respondent. 2.The revision petitioners / plaintiffs, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial court, seeking to amend the plaint, has stated that the respondent / defendant without following the procedure, has chosen to calculate the property tax, as per the Rent Control Act. The amendment sought for is, "The defendant is having a separate procedure for assessment of property tax for lodging houses. Without following that procedure, the defendant has chosen to calculate the property tax as per the Rent Control Act. Further the defendant has calculated the land and building value at exorbitantly high rate only with a view to extract more tax from the plaintiff. Further the defendant also has not followed the Rent Control Rules in arriving at the Annual Rental Value" 3.The petitioner, in paragraph 8 of the plaint, has stated that the defendant has not taken any steps to levy the property tax as per the procedure. The procedure adopted by the defendant in levying the tax has been questioned in the suit itself. The amendment sought for is only an amplification of the pleadings made in paragraph 8 of the plaint and if the amendment is allowed, in no way, it would prejudice the case of the defendant. The plaintiffs, in their anxiety, wanted to explain the procedure in the amendment and by allowing such amendment, this court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition has been filed after three years from the date of filing of the suit only with a view to protract the proceedings. 4.The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners / plaintiffs states that they have been paying the tax, which was levied prior to the present enhancement and therefore, there may not be any intention on the part of the plaintiffs to drag on the proceedings. 4.The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners / plaintiffs states that they have been paying the tax, which was levied prior to the present enhancement and therefore, there may not be any intention on the part of the plaintiffs to drag on the proceedings. It is also pertinent to note that an amendment of the pleadings is permissible at any stage of the proceedings, provided that the said amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. As such, the mere delay in filing the petition would not come in the way of the parties from amending the proceedings. In the said view of the matter, the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs has got to be allowed. 5.In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed. 6.As the suit is of the year 1998, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible.