Narayan Chandra Sil ( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of india is directed against the order impugned No. 114 dated 27. 11. 2003 passed by Sri Milan Chatterjee the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil court, Calcutta in connection with Title Suit No. 1342 of the 1984 allowing an amendment of the plaint. ( 2 ) THE application is contested by the O. P. by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. ( 3 ) MR. Sabyasachi Sen, the learned Counsel appearing with Mr. Pratik Prakash Banerjee, the learned Counsel for the defendant/petitioner has drawn my attention to the amendment petition itself. It is submitted that the amendment petition was filed in the month of October, 2001 whereas on the own admission of the plaintiff the cause of action arose in the month of november, 1984. The order impugned passed by the learned trial Judge allowing the amendment application had changed the nature and character of the suit. It is also pointed out that even after the amendment the plaint remains inconsistent. It is pointed out that in the plaint it is claimed that the truck in question is still in possession of the plaintiff, but nowhere in the amended plaint there is anything that the truck is untraceable. It is also pointed out that although after the amendment application was allowed the learned trial Judge directed to deposit the deficit Court fees on a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the valuation shown in the original plaint itself was not altered. It is further argued that although the amendment application was allowed the suit appears to become infructuous in the absence of any prayer for consequential relief of return of truck in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. My attention was drawn to the prayers made in the original plaint. My attention was also drawn to the amended plaint and it is argued that in prayer c (i) which was incorporated after the amendment in the first sentence an alternative decree for Rs. 3,00,000/- being the value of the truck and interest thereon was prayed but in the next sentence in that prayer a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was prayed beside interest. This is apparently contradictory, Mr. Sen argues. 3,00,000/- being the value of the truck and interest thereon was prayed but in the next sentence in that prayer a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was prayed beside interest. This is apparently contradictory, Mr. Sen argues. My attention was also drawn to paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that by the proposed amendment the plaintiff is trying to make out a different case and to import a new cause of action in the instant case which he is not otherwise entitled to claim in law. It is also stated there that the claim of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is barred by limitation. Several case laws have been cited by the learned Advocates for both the parties. ( 4 ) MR. Arun Kumar Maity, the learned Counsel appearing for the o. P. submits that there are two points raised by the petitioner namely (1)change of nature and character of the suit and (2) conversion of the suit for declaration into a money suit. Mr. Maity argued that in terms of the order passed by the High Court at Bombay the suit was filed when the car was not in possession of the plaintiff. It is also pointed out by him that a Receiver was appointed by the High Court at Bombay and the Receiver took possession of the car. It is admitted by him that a criminal proceeding was initiated against the plaintiff. It is also argued by him that the proposed amendment is not at all inconsistent with the original plaint as the defendant admitted the transaction in paragraph 13 of the written statement filed before the trial Court. ( 5 ) I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the parties and the materials on record. In fact, copy of the written statement has not been filed by either of the parties before this Court. It appears from the copy of the plaint annexed to the petition that the suit was for declaration and mandatory injunction. In the original plaint there appears as many as eight prayers and after amendment another prayer namely c/ (i)has been incorporated. It appears from the copy of the plaint annexed to the petition that the suit was for declaration and mandatory injunction. In the original plaint there appears as many as eight prayers and after amendment another prayer namely c/ (i)has been incorporated. Declaration as sought for is as regards the absolute ownership of the truck in question being No. WMK 6729 which was subsequently registered and numbered as WBQ 3566 and by way of amendment an alternative decree has been prayed for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs towards the valuation of the truck and interest thereon. I am tempted to quote the said prayer c/ (i) which reads as under: "alternative a decree for Rs. 3,000,00/- (Rs. three lakhs) being the value of the Truck and interest in case the Truck is not traceable the plaintiff would pray for a decree of Rs. 3,00,000/- besides interest. " (emphasis added)Now on a close look of this prayer it is abundantly clear that there is no in-consistency as claimed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner/defendant that once Rs. 3,00,000/- stood inclusive of interest and thereafter exclusive interest. Rather from the prayer it is clear that the valuation of the truck was shown as 3 lakhs and that apart interest on the same is prayed as a matter of alternative decree. ( 6 ) THE original suit was for declaration and mandatory injunction. Declaration is as regards the ownership of the truck in question. And the alternative decree of Rs. 3,00,000/- and interest thereon is in respect of the valuation of the said truck. True that apparently there is the change and character of the very frame of the suit i. e. from declaration and injunction on one hand to a money decree for Rs. 3,00,000/- and interest thereon. But that has been protected by the order impugned passed by the learned Judge directing the plaintiff to deposit the deficit court fees on the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ -. From that point of view I do not find anything that there has been a see-saw change in the nature and character of the suit. 3,00,000/- and interest thereon. But that has been protected by the order impugned passed by the learned Judge directing the plaintiff to deposit the deficit court fees on the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ -. From that point of view I do not find anything that there has been a see-saw change in the nature and character of the suit. It is true that the order impugned dated 27th November, 2003 passed by the learned trial judge in disposing of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of civil Procedure is too laconic to support the same but since I have nothing to interfere with the result of the order the same seems better to be ignored. ( 7 ) A question on limitation is of course there. This question may be dealt with at the time of trial of the suit if it is raised by the petitioner/defendant in their additional written statement after the order impugned was passed by the learned trial Judge. This will also mitigate the claim of the petitioner that in the suit although the cause of action was shown as of 1980 the amendment application was filed in the month of October 2001. In this connection it may be mentioned that the plaintiff is entitled to incorporate the subsequent events. ( 8 ) NOW I shall deal it the different case laws filled by the learned advocates for the parties. As many as five case laws have been referred to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Thus, it is held in the case of sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr. , (2002)7 SCC 559 : (2003)1 WBLR (SC)174 that the basic structure of the plaint should remain unchanged. In the case of Gurdial Singh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar Aneja and Ors. , (2002)2 SCC 445 . Their lordships held in that case that the proposed amendment should not be vague and should tally with the original pleadings. The amendment should not try to introduce time barred claim. Similar decision was made in the case of Pirgonda hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors. , AIR 1957 SC 363 . It was decided in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Indian Bank and Anr. , (2003)6 scc 79 that the amendment should not be mala fide. It was held in the case of dilip Kaur and Anr. , AIR 1957 SC 363 . It was decided in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Indian Bank and Anr. , (2003)6 scc 79 that the amendment should not be mala fide. It was held in the case of dilip Kaur and Anr. v. Major Singh and Ors. , AIR 1996 P and H 107 that the amendments which are necessary for determination of the real controversy in the suit should only be allowed. And the amendments which alter and try to be a substitute of the Cause of Action of the original suit and inconsistent and contradictory to the allegations in negation to the admitted position of the facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts or mutually destructive allegations prejudicial to the adversary should be disallowed. ( 9 ) ALL the above case laws deal with the basic tenets of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is already observed that there will be no change of the basic structure of the suit and its nature and character by the amendment. The question of limitation and so also the change of cause of action may be taken up at the time of trial of the suit as a separate issue. ( 10 ) THE learned Advocate for the O. P. has also referred to a number of case laws. I will discuss only the relevant ones. Thus it was held by our single Judge in the case of Ajit Kumar Saha v. Ashit Kumar Saha, (2003)1 Cal lj 187 after having relied on several case laws of the Apex Court, that the court may allow an amendment at any stage of the proceeding even if it contains an inconsistent or contradictory plea if not prejudice is caused to the other side. ( 11 ) IN the case of Jagabandhu Naik and Anr. v. Gouri Bandha and Ors. , AIR 1985 Orissa 126 it was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the suit must fail as there had been no prayer for recovery of possession. The learned Single Judge in relying upon the ratio decided in the case of v. Krishna Rao Dora v. Kotini Sitaram Dora, (1973)39 Cut LT 975 had set aside the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and decreed the suit in the second appeal. The learned Single Judge in relying upon the ratio decided in the case of v. Krishna Rao Dora v. Kotini Sitaram Dora, (1973)39 Cut LT 975 had set aside the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and decreed the suit in the second appeal. The suit was for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The defendant took the plea of adverse possession. The suit was dismissed by the Courts below on finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove their possession within 12 years from filing of the suit. The learned Single Judge in such case held that the Court can order recovery of possession though there is no specific prayer for recovery of possession, if necessary court fees had been paid therefor. ( 12 ) HERE in the instant case the learned Judge by passing the order impugned directed the plaintiff to deposit the deficit court fees a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ -. ( 13 ) IN view of all what is discussed above I do not find any merits of the revisional application for which the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 14 ) THE revisional application is thus dismissed. The order impugned passed by the learned Judge is hereby affirmed. Later: ( 15 ) LET urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties as expeditiously as possible.