Heard Shri Deepak Dhingra, the learned counsel duly assisted by Shri Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Tribhuwan Phartiyal, the learned counsel duly assisted by Shri Anirudh Katoch, the learned counsel for the respon­dents. 2. The defendant/applicant has filed the present revision u/S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure questioning the veracity and legal­ity of the order dated 18th August, 2009 passed by the trial court allowing the appli­cation of the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking certain amendments in the plaint. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision is, that the plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction on 6th No­vember, 2007 seeking a relief of possession of the property in question from the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed an application dated 07-12-2007 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for the rejection of the plaint on various grounds, viz., that the suit was barred by the limitation that the court fee paid was insufficient and that no cause of action had arisen for filing the suit. The application of the defendant was rejected by the trial Court by an order dated 10th April, 2008. The defendant preferred a revision before the High Court which was allowed by an order dated 31st October, 2008. The Court remitted the matter back to the trial Court to re-decide the application under Or­der 7, Rule 11 of the CPC in the light of the observation made by the Court. Against this order, the plaintiffs preferred a Special Leave Petition which was entertained and the order of the High Court was stayed in the mean­while. It has come on record that the said SLP is still pending consideration before the Su­preme Court. 4. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the plaintiffs moved an application dated 18th April, 2009 under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint. This ap­plication was withdrawn and fresh amend­ment application dated 4th May, 2009 was preferred seeking an amendment in the plaint. The amendment sought has been indicated in paragraph 5 of the application which is quoted hereunder:- "(A) That the words "and again on 12-12-2008" be added in para 14 after the words "finally on 10-9-07" and before the words "when the notice". The amendment sought has been indicated in paragraph 5 of the application which is quoted hereunder:- "(A) That the words "and again on 12-12-2008" be added in para 14 after the words "finally on 10-9-07" and before the words "when the notice". (B) That the words "and for damages re­spectively" be added in para 14 after the words "vacate/termination of license" and before the words "was sent". (C) That the words "and UPC respec­tively" be added in para 14 after the words "registered A.D." and before the words "to the defendant". (D) That the letter "s" be added in para 14 after the word "notice" and before the words "by 17-9-07". (F) That the words "and 18-12-08 respec­tive" be added in para 14 after the word "by 17-9-07" and before the words "when the plaintiff'. (f) That the words "It is pertinent to men­tion here that since the relief sought for dam­ages is yet to be ascertained by this Hon'ble Court, the court-fees for the same will be paid at the time of execution" be added at the end of para 16 after the word "claimed". (G) That the following paragraph 14 (a) be allowed to be added after paragraph 14 and before paragraph 15. "14(a) That the defendant company have not bothered to heed to the notice dated 10-9-2007 nor to the notice dated 12-12-2008 and hence is liable to at least Rs. twenty lacs per month (Rs. 20,000,00/- month) for the portion of the Grassmare Estate Trust pre­mises used as Manu Maharani Hotel along with the appurtenant land in it's possession as damages for unauthorized due of the afore­said premises from the date of notice of ter­mination of license till the handing over of the vacant possession of the aforesaid "pre­mises" to the plaintiff Trust". H) That the following paragraph 17(a)(1) be allowed to be added to the relief's - "17(a)(1) That defendant be directed to pay damages for the unauthorized use of the Grassmare Estate Trust premises used as Manu Maharani Hotel along with the appur­tenant land in his possession from the date of termination of license till the date of handing over of the vacant possession of the afore­said premises to the plaintiff Trust through its Chairman." after para 17(a) and before para 17(b)." 5. In paragraph 4 of the application, the plaintiffs contended that the plea for damages was inadvertently left out in the plaint and, therefore, prayed that the plea of damages be incorporated in the plaint in the interest of justice. This application was opposed by the defendant contending that no permission was sought by the plaintiffs from the Court as con­templated under Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC and that the amendment sought was belated having been filed after more than 2'/2 years since the institution of the suit. Further, the amendment sought was vague and further no damages had been quantified in the relief clause. The defendant, therefore, contended that the application for amendment was li­able to be rejected with cost. 6. The trial Court, after considering the matter, allowed the application and directed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint on payment of cost of Rs. 200/-. The defendant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, has filed the present revision. 7. The learned counsel for the defendant/applicant contended that the relief, for dam­ages was an independent cause of action for which a separate suit, if any, could be insti­tuted by the plaintiffs and, therefore, there was no cause for the plaintiffs to move an appli­cation for amendment in the present suit. The learned counsel submitted that there had been a considerable delay in moving the applica­tion for amendment and, such amendment, being belated by more than 2-Yt years, should not be allowed at this stage of the suit. The learned counsel further submitted that no leave of the Court, as contemplated under Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC, was taken by the plaintiffs and, consequently, the amendment application could not have been allowed. In support of his contention, the learned coun­sel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shi v Gopal Sah alias Shiv Gopal Sahu v. Sita Ram Sarugi, AIR 2007 SC 1478 , wherein it was held that the amendment application which introduces a time barred claim could not be allowed. In support of his contention, the learned coun­sel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shi v Gopal Sah alias Shiv Gopal Sahu v. Sita Ram Sarugi, AIR 2007 SC 1478 , wherein it was held that the amendment application which introduces a time barred claim could not be allowed. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 : 2009 AIR SCW 6644) wherein the Court held that the amendment application should not be allowed where it drags on the proceed­ings amounting to a misuse of the process of the Court. 8. The learned counsel further placed re­liance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, (2007) 8 SCC 600 : AIR 2008 SC 171 and New Bank of India thru. Punjab Na­tional Bank v. Inder Saran Mehra, 2008 1 AD (Delhi) 573, wherein the Court considered the provision of Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC and Order 2 Rule 4 of the CPC as to when the leave of the Court could be taken. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that a fresh suit for payment of damages was not barred and, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, an amendment was sought in the plaint since the plea of damages was accruing on the same cause of action for which no leave of the Court was required under Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC. The learned counsel submitted that the amendment sought does not change the na­ture of the suit, and that the nature of relief remained the same and that a liberal approach was required to be adopted which the lower Court had taken. The learned counsel submit­ted that no prejudice was being caused to the defendant and that the compensation has been awarded which was just and proper. 10. The learned counsel submit­ted that no prejudice was being caused to the defendant and that the compensation has been awarded which was just and proper. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate if the pro­vision of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC is ex­tracted hereunder:- "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." 11. The general principles as culled out from the various decisions of the Supreme Court is, that an amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, in such man­ner, and on such terms as may be just in or­der to determine the real question in contro­versy between the parties. The principle ob­ject of this rule is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for the mis­take they made in the conduct of their cases. No doubt, Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC has been misused by the parties which has en­tailed dragging the proceedings indefinately. Delay is one of the factors where amendment could be refused in a given case by the Court but it does not mean that the Court would not allow the amendment application merely be­cause there had been a substantial delay. The Court has to decide the delay on the facts and matters in every given case. 12. In the present case, the defendant al­leges a delay of 2½ years in moving the amendment application from the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that if a fresh suit was filed, the same would have been within the period of limitation which fact has not been controverted by the defendant. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions have held that there should be avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that if a fresh suit was filed, the same would have been within the period of limitation which fact has not been controverted by the defendant. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions have held that there should be avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. Since the plea of damages raised flows from the same cause of action, this Court is of the opinion, that the amendment in relation to the plea of damages was rightly allowed and the plea was allowed to be in­corporated in the plaint. There was no delay in moving the application, especially when no written statement has been filed by the defendant till date. Further, the relief of dam­ages could also be claimed in the instant sui instead of delegating the plaintiff in filing another suit. 13. Amendments generally should be allowed unless it is shown that permitting such amendment would be unjust and would re­sult in prejudice against the opposite party which could not be compensated in terms of cost or would deprive the opposite party of a right which had accrued to him with the lapse of time. In the present case, the Court does not find that any prejudice has been caused to the defendant which could not be compen sated in terms of costs nor any valuable right had accrued on account of lapse of time. Consequently, the trial Court rightly exercised it power in allowing the amendment applica­tion by imposition of cost in favour of defen­dant. In North Eastern Railway Administra­tion, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511 : AIR 2008 SC 2139 the Supreme Court held as under:- "Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amend­ments under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned,; these are also well settled. Order 6, Rule 17,. CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which sat­isfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which sat­isfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be com­pensated in costs. (Also see: Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990) 1 SCC 166 . 14. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K. K. Modi, AIR 2006 SC 1647 , the Supreme Court held as under: - "As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without deciding whether such an amendment is nec­essary has expressed certain opinion and en­tered into a discussion on merits of the amend­ment. In cases like this, the Court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safe­guard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the rule of amend­ment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amend­ment should be exercised in the larger inter­est of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be al­lowed, the Court should not go into the cor­rectness or falsity of the case in the amend­ment. Likewise, it should not record a find­ing on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incor­porated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case." 15. Likewise, it should not record a find­ing on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incor­porated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case." 15. In Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, AIR 2002 SC 3369 , the Supreme Court held as under: - "9. Order 6, Rule 17, CPC confers juris­diction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. Such amendments as are directed to­wards putting forth and seeking determina­tion of the real questions in controversy be­tween the parties shall be permitted to be made. The questions of delay in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are al­lowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. In the former case generally it can be assumed that the defendant is not prejudiced because he will have full opportunity of meeting the case of the plaintiff as amended. In the latter cases the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and that shall have to be answered by reference to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. No straitjacket for­mula can be laid down. The fact remains that a mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment. 10. An amendment once incorporated re­lates back to the date of the suit. However, the doctrine of relation back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not one of uni­versal application and in appropriate cases the Court is competent while permitting an amendment to direct that the amendment per­mitted by it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been brought before the Court on the date on which the applica­tion seeking the amendment was filed. (See observations in Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561 : AIR 2001 SC 2896 ." 16. (See observations in Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561 : AIR 2001 SC 2896 ." 16. In the light of the aforesaid, the cardi­nal test and the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is neces­sary to decide the real dispute between the parties. The Court should also find out that the amendment sought would satisfy as to whether any injustice would be caused to the other side and that the amendment sought was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. If the amendment sought does not cause prejudice or injury, the same should be allowed and if any injury is being caused, the Court is required to see as to whether the said injury could not be compen­sated in terms of cost. 17. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the plea of damages is culled out from the same cause of action, namely, the relief possession which the plaintiffs had ini­tially prayed. Consequently, in order to avoid multiplicity of such and in the absence of any prejudice being caused to the defendant and, in view of the fact that the amendment sought does not change the nature of the suit, the trial Court rightly adopted a liberal approach and allowed the amendment so that the contro­versy involved between the parties could be decided together. 18. In so far as the plea of leave not being taken under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC is concerned, it is true that in terms of Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC all the reliefs which could be claimed in the suit should be prayed for. Order 2, Rule 3 provides for joinder of causes of action but there is an exception which is provided under Order 2, Rule 4 of the CPC. For joining causes of action in respect of matters covered by Clause (a), (b) and (c) of Order 2 Rule 4, no leave of the Court is re­quired to be taken. For facility, the provision of Order 2, Rule 2, 3 and 4 of the CPC are extracted hereunder: - "2. For joining causes of action in respect of matters covered by Clause (a), (b) and (c) of Order 2 Rule 4, no leave of the Court is re­quired to be taken. For facility, the provision of Order 2, Rule 2, 3 and 4 of the CPC are extracted hereunder: - "2. Suit to include the whole claim.- (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in re­spect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. (2) Relinquishment of part of claim.- Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in re­spect of the portion so omitted or relin­quished. (3) Omission to sue for one of several re­liefs.- A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all of any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not after­wards sue for any relief so omitted. Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims aris­ing under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action. 3. Joinder of causes of action.- (1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same de­fendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly in­terested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of insti­tuting the suit. 4. (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of insti­tuting the suit. 4. Only certain claims to be joined for re­covery of immovable property.- No cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except - (a) claims for mesne profits or arrear of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof; (b) claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held; and (c) claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action: Provided that nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prevent any party in a suit for fore­closure or redemption from asking to be put into possession of the mortgaged property." 19. From a perusal of the aforesaid, no leave of the Court is required under Order 2, Rule 4 of the CPC to include the claim of damages. This view of mine is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, (2007) 8'SCC 600: ( AIR 2008 SC 171 ) wherein the Court has held as under: - "16. In terms of Order II, Rule 2 of the' Code, all the, reliefs which could be clair in the suit should be prayed for. Order II, Rule 3 provides for joinder of causes, of action. Order II, Rule 4 is an exception thereto. For; joining causes of action in respect of matters covered by Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Order n, Rule 4, no leave of the Court is required to be taken. Even without taking leave of the Court, a prayer in that behalf can be made. A suit for recovery of possession on declara­tion of one's title and/or injunction and a suit forraesne profit or damages may involve dif­ferent cause of action. For a suit for posses­sions, there may be one cause of action; and for claiming a decree for mesne profit, there may be another. In terms of Order II, Rule 4 of the Code, however, such causes of action can be joined and therefor no leave of the Court is required to be taken. For a suit for posses­sions, there may be one cause of action; and for claiming a decree for mesne profit, there may be another. In terms of Order II, Rule 4 of the Code, however, such causes of action can be joined and therefor no leave of the Court is required to be taken. If no leave has been taken, a separate suit may or may not be maintainable but even a suit wherefor a prayer for grant of damages by way of mesne profit or otherwise is claimed, must be instituted within the prescribed period of limitation. Damages cannot be granted without payment of court-fee. In a case where damages are re­quired to be calculated, a fixed court-fee is to be paid but on the quantum determined by the Court and the balance court-fee is to be paid when a final decree is to be prepared." 20. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court allowing the amendment ap­plication. The present revision, consequently, fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.