Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2006 by virtue of which application moved by the plaintiff-respondents was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 300/- as costs. 2. In order to avoid repetition, the facts of the case are not required to be reproduced in this order since they have already been recapitulated in the order passed by the learned lower Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order. 4. It is an admitted case of the parties that the land was mortgaged by Jawala Singh and earlier litigation took place between Sewa Singh and the mortgagees. In that suit, gift deed dated 15.5.1965 was pleaded and proved, but that suit was dismissed since the time for redemption of the mortgaged land had not arrived inasmuch as there was a condition that the land shall be redeemed only after a period of 60 years. Gift deed dated 15.5.1965 is a registered document which was subject-matter of the previous litigation between the parties. The proposed amendment does not require any evidence nor any fresh issue is required to be framed. The present amendment is being sought to clarify the plea which has already been taken to explain how the plaintiff-respondents have cause of action to claim redemption of the suit property. The learned lower Court, after noticing the facts of the case in hand, has observed that the proposed amendment is necessary for just decision of the case and the opposite party can be compensated by way of costs. 5. Moreover, it is well settled law that 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 and in the opinion of this Court, such an amendment is necessary keeping in view the controversy between the parties with regard to the earlier litigation. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any glaring defect in the impugned passed by the trial Court nor any manifest error on the point of law could be pointed out, which has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice, which needs to be set right. 7. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 15.12.2006 passed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court. In the final analysis, revision petition being devoid of any merit, fails and is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed.