GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) THE revision petitioners were the appellants in A. S. No. 25/95 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Kavali. They filed IA no. 152 of 2000 in the said appeal under order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure, seeking amendment of the plaint and alteration of the measurements in the plaint schedule. This application was rejected by the lower appellate court and hence this revision under Art. 227 of the constitution. ( 2 ) I. A. No. 152 of 2000 was filed with an affidavit in support by the 3rd revision petitioner/3rd appellant, pleading that the revision petitioners 1 and 2 had instituted o. S. No. 61/88 on the file of the District munsif, Kavali, against the respondents herein/defendants for declaration of their exclusive right of passage in the suit schedule property and for a consequent permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the site and for restraining them from raising a fallen wall shown as ab in the plaint plan. The 3rd revision petitioner got himself impleaded as the 3rd plaintiff in the suit by way of I. A. No. 929 of 2992. The trial court dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 5-6-1995. Aggrieved, the revision petitioners filed A. S. No. 25/95. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the revision petitioners, while describing the plaint schedule property, the width and length were not correctly mentioned, as is evident from the sale deed dated 7-2-1960, in favour of the 3rd revision petitioner s father and this error was noticed only when the revision petitioners were getting ready for arguments in the appeal, it was further pleaded in I. A. No. 152 of 2000 that since the revision petitioners 1 and 2 preferred the appeal, the 3rd revision petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the width and length were correctly mentioned in the plaint schedule. Hence the application for amendment of the measurements was filed. ( 4 ) IN rejecting this application the lower appellate court recorded that the suit was filed in 1988. Though the suit was under process and trial from 7-4-1988 to 5-6-1995 and the 3rd revision petitioner came on record as the 3rd plaintiff in 1992, no efforts were made to seek correction of the plaint schedule for over 7 years in the suit. Though the suit was under process and trial from 7-4-1988 to 5-6-1995 and the 3rd revision petitioner came on record as the 3rd plaintiff in 1992, no efforts were made to seek correction of the plaint schedule for over 7 years in the suit. Even after the filing of the appeal in 1995 the revision petitioners did not seek the amendment, in the appeal. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the remedy sought in the application is being sought at this inordinately belated stage when the appeal is slotted for hearing and arguments. Recording the above reasons and holding that there is abnormal and unexplained delay in filing the I. A. seeking amendment and that the revision petitioners failed to advance any cogent reasons for such belated application, the court below rejected the application. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the revision petitioners, in the plaint schedule, the site situate in between ab marked portion in the plaint plan runs for about 17 ft. in length and 1ft. in width, situate between the southern vacant site and plots 1,2 and 3, whereas according to the sale deed dated 7-2-1960 the said site is of a length of 55 ft. and a width of 17 ft. To effect the correction in the measurements of this site in the plaint schedule the I. A. was filed before the lower appellate court in the year 2000. ( 6 ) THE principle is well settled that under order VI Rule 17 CPC, amendment of the pleadings may be permitted by the Court at any stage of the proceedings, on such grounds as may be just, so as to effectuate examination of the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendment may be permitted at the discretion of the court, so however that the discretion is exercised rationally. The avowed object of permitting an amendment of pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of suits and therefore an application for amendment should be liberally considered. The amendment may be ordered even at the appellate or second appellate stage. Amendment may be permitted at the discretion of the court, so however that the discretion is exercised rationally. The avowed object of permitting an amendment of pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of suits and therefore an application for amendment should be liberally considered. The amendment may be ordered even at the appellate or second appellate stage. ( 7 ) BUT where an amendment of pleadings is sought at a belated stage such as at the time of hearing of the appeal, as in this case, and the amendment sought to be introduced to the plaint schedule is in respect of facts which had all along been within the reach of the revision petitioners and without any reasonable explanation for the abnormal delay in filing the application, an application for amendment cannot be allowed as a matter of course and for the mere asking. ( 8 ) THE Claim of the revision petitioners- plaintiffs to the exclusive right of passage of the suit schedule property was based on the registered sale deed dated 7-2-1960 executed by one Thayaramma in favour of muppasani Sankaraiah, husband of the 1st revision petitioner and father of the revision petitioners 2 and 3. The sale deed dated 7-2-1960 was also filed along with the suit as a suit document in 1988. 12 years later at the time of hearing of the appeal the application i. A. No. 152 of 2000 was filed seeking amendment of the plaint schedule on the ground that the measurements set out in the plaint schedule are not in accordance with the recitals in the sale deed dated 7-2-1960. No rational explanation is pleaded for such abnormal delay except a breezy averment that the 3rd revision petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the measurements were correctly mentioned in the plaint schedule and in terms of the sale deed dated 7-2-1960. ( 9 ) IT further requires to be noticed that rule 17 of Order VI CPC was omitted by the code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 46/99) (for short Amendment Act, 1999) and again substituted in an amended form by Act 22 of 2992 w. e. f. 1-7-2002. ( 9 ) IT further requires to be noticed that rule 17 of Order VI CPC was omitted by the code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 46/99) (for short Amendment Act, 1999) and again substituted in an amended form by Act 22 of 2992 w. e. f. 1-7-2002. W. e. f. 1-7-2002 in view of the proviso to rule 17 of Order VI CPC no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial had commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Establishing the factum of due diligence in respect of an application for amendment is thus a statutory requirement under Order VI Rule 17, after the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) act, 2002 (Act 22/02) (for short Amendment act, 2002 ). ( 10 ) MR. Chandraiah Naidu learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that as Rule 17 Order VI CPC was omitted by the Amendment Act, 1999 and as Rule 17 was not in existence as on the date of the filing of I. A. No. 152/2000, before the lower appellate court, no application for amendment of the pleadings was maintainable and therefore the order of the court below rejecting the application of the revision petitioners, is not liable to be interfered with. ( 11 ) RULE 17 Order VI CPC, prior to the amendment Act, 1999, reads as under:"order VI Rule 17 17. 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. " ( 12 ) BY the Amendment Act, 1999 Sec. 16 cl. (iii), Rules 17 and 18 of Order VI CPC were omitted. However, omission of Rule 17 of Order VI came into force with effect from 1-7-2002. On the same date the Amendment act 2002 vide Sec. 7 substituted Order VI rule 17 by the following rule:-"order VI Rule17 17. (iii), Rules 17 and 18 of Order VI CPC were omitted. However, omission of Rule 17 of Order VI came into force with effect from 1-7-2002. On the same date the Amendment act 2002 vide Sec. 7 substituted Order VI rule 17 by the following rule:-"order VI Rule17 17. 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: provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. " ( 13 ) THE omission of Order VI Rule 17, by the Amendment Act, 1999 and its substitution by the Amendment Act, 2002 came into force on 1-7-2002. As I. A. No. 152/2000 was filed by the revision petitioners, before the court below prior to the coming into force of either the amendment Act, 1999 or the Amendment act 2002, in so far as Rule 17 of Order VI is concerned, this application of the revision petitioners would fall to be considered under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 as it stood prior to these amendments. ( 14 ) ON the above analysis it is clear that establishment of due diligence of the revision petitioners is not a statutory condition precedent for allowing an application for amendment of the plaintiff s own pleadings. Such amendment could be allowed even at a belated stage and an application for amendment should be liberally exercised. The chronology of events no doubt discloses that the revision petitioners-plaintiffs, have been negligent and careless both at the time of institution of the suit, throughout the course of trial of the suit and for nearly 5 years at the appellate stage. Exercise of due diligence and care could have avoided this considerable inconvenience to the respondentsdefendants. The chronology of events no doubt discloses that the revision petitioners-plaintiffs, have been negligent and careless both at the time of institution of the suit, throughout the course of trial of the suit and for nearly 5 years at the appellate stage. Exercise of due diligence and care could have avoided this considerable inconvenience to the respondentsdefendants. However the principles governing the exercise of discretion in this area, as have been succinctly stated by bramwell Lord Justice in Tildesley v. Harper may be noticed:"i have had much to do in chambers, with applications for leave to amend, and I may perhaps be allowed to say that this humble branch of learning is very familiar to me. My practice has always been to give leave to amend unless I have been satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that, by his blunder, he has done some injury to the opponent which could not be compensated for by costs or otherwise. " ( 15 ) IN Clarapede and Co. v. Commercial union Association, the effect of negligence and carelessness in the initial pleadings on a subsequent application for amendment has thus been stated:"however negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed ir it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs. "bowen Lord Justice in Cropper v. Smith said:"i have found in my experience that there is one panacea which heals every sore in litigation, and that is costs. " ( 16 ) THE above principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram manohar Lal v. National Building Material supply, Gurgaon. ( 17 ) IN the case on hand the revision petitioners filed the suit for a declaration and a consequent permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the site and from raising a fallen wall "ab" as shown in the plaint plan. This relief was sought, inter alia, on the plea that on 7-2-1960 one Muppasani Sankaraiah (husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3) purchased the site shown as item-3 in the plain plan under a registered sale deed from one Thayaramma w/o venkaiah, the original document whereof was filed along with the plaint. This relief was sought, inter alia, on the plea that on 7-2-1960 one Muppasani Sankaraiah (husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3) purchased the site shown as item-3 in the plain plan under a registered sale deed from one Thayaramma w/o venkaiah, the original document whereof was filed along with the plaint. The sale deed dated 7-2-1960 sets out the measurements of the site under the sale deed as under:"east: 55 Ft. South: 17 Ft. West: 55 Ft. North: 17 Ft. " ( 18 ) THE measurements stated in the plaint plan have therefore been carelessly recorded by the revision petitioners, and a carelessness and absence of diligence that continued through out the pendency of the suit and for nearly 5 years in the appeal. As a result thereof the respondents-defendants in the suit do suffer inconvenience. But such inconvenience could be compensated in terms of costs. ( 19 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the revision is allowed. The order dated 17-7-2001 of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, in I. A. No. 152 of 2000 in A. S. No. 25 of 1995 is set aside. I. A. No. 152 of 200 is allowed on condition that the revision petitioners pay the respondents herein costs in an amount of rs. 1,0007- (Rupees one thousand only), within four weeks from to-day. On failure of the revision petitioners in paying the costs as ordered above to the respondents herein and within the stipulated time, I. A. No. 152 of 2000 shall stand dismissed and the order of the court below impugned herein shall stand confirmed. ( 20 ) THE revision is allowed on the terms above. No costs.