JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—In the present revision the revisionist is challenging the order of the Judge Small Cause Court dated 6.9.2007 by which he has allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff. 2. The revisionist is the defendant in S.C.C. Case N0. 9 of 2005. The plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that he is landlord of the shop in dispute and the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable, which was let out to revisionist on a rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month through an agreement / rent deed on 18.11.1977. The revisionist-defendant did not pay the rent therefore a notice was sent. The suit was for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The revisionist-defendant filed the written statement and denied the allegations of plaint. The plaintiff-respondent moved an amendment application, which was marked as 56G for the amendment in the plaint. By way of amendment, the plaintiff sought the amendment as follows: In paragraph-2 of third line, in place of “Ikrarnama / rent agreement”, the word Ikrarnama be deleted; in paragraph-3, in place of word “Ubhay Paksho”, “plaintiff and defendant No. 1” be substituted and after the word “defendant”, “defendant No. 1” be mentioned and in paragraph-6 an addition has been sought that “instead of vacating the shop, defendant No. 1 has given the shop to Sri Sanjeev Kumar, defendant No. 2 @ Rs.250/- per month”. The revisionist contested the amendment. However, the Court below has allowed the amendment by the impugned order on the cost of Rs.500/-. It has been held that by the amendment, the nature of the suit has not been changed and the averments made in the plaint have not been resiled. 3. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.M. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the plaintiff has moved the amendment application when the suit was at the stage of final disposal. The fact that the shop has been given by defendant No. 1 to his brother Sanjeev Kumar, defendant No. 2 @ Rs.250/- per month, if at all correct, was known to the plaintiff at the time of filing of the plaint. He, however, submitted that the defendant has denied such allegations and, therefore, the amendment should not be allowed. 5. The fact that the shop has been given by defendant No. 1 to his brother Sanjeev Kumar, defendant No. 2 @ Rs.250/- per month, if at all correct, was known to the plaintiff at the time of filing of the plaint. He, however, submitted that the defendant has denied such allegations and, therefore, the amendment should not be allowed. 5. In support of the contention he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, (2006) 12 SCC 1 , Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, (2009) 2 SCC 409 and Devendra Mohan and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2004 All CJ 968) paragraphs- 9 & 10. 6. Sri H.M. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that by the amendment, the nature of the suit has not been changed and any fact has not been resiled. It is settled law that the amendment should normally be allowed. 7. He placed reliance of this Court and the Division Bench decisions of the apex Court in the case of Mustzab Khan and others v. Arvind Kumar Mittal and others, 2009 All CJ 2184; Fritiz T.M. Clement and another v. Sudhakaran Nadar and another, 2002 (3) CCC 62 (SC) and Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh and others, 2008 All CJ 2333 (SC). 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order. 9. I do not find any error in the order. The suit was for the ejectment and arrears of rent. By the amendment, the nature of the suit has not been changed. Some factual aspect has been sought, to be added as an additional fact and the ground for claiming the relief. 10. In the case of Mustzab Khan and others v. Arvind Kumar Mittal and others (supra), this Court on the consideration of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and the decision of the apex Court in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, AIR 2007 SC 1663 , has held that amendment can be allowed if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and it can be allowed at any stage of proceedings and the liberal view should be taken. 11. 11. In the case of Fritiz T.M. Clement and another v. Sudhakaran Nadar and another (supra), the Apex Court has held that in case if the plaint is ill-drafted with cryptic and inaccurate averments, no prejudice could possibly be caused to the respondents. The amendment can be allowed at the belated stage subject to the cost. 12. In the case of Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh and others (supra), the Apex Court has held that the entire object of the said amendment is to stall filing of applications for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and the parties had sufficient knowledge of the others case. It also helps in checking the delays in filing the applications. Once, the trial commences on the known pleas, it will be very difficult for any side to reconcile. Inspite of the same, an exception is made in the newly inserted proviso where it is shown that in spite of due diligence, he could not raise a plea, it is for the Court to consider the same. Therefore, it is not a complete bar nor shuts out entertaining of any later application. 13. In the present case, the Court below had accepted the explanation of delay in moving the amendment application and amendment sought in the plaint. Therefore, the view of the Court below does not require any interference. 14. In the case of Hakim and others v. District Judge, Deoria and others, 2004 All CJ 2248 cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist, this Court has also held that the amendment can be allowed at any subsequent stage by a reasoned order. 15. In the case of Rajkumar Gurawara v. M/s. S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 001 (SC), the Apex Court has held that the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made and it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17. 16. The decision referred by the learned counsel for the revisionist in the case of Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another (supra) is distinguishable on the facts and does not help the revisionist. 16. The decision referred by the learned counsel for the revisionist in the case of Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another (supra) is distinguishable on the facts and does not help the revisionist. 17. In the present case, the plaintiff filed the suit and sought amendment at the later stage. The trial Court held that by the amendment, the nature of the suit has not been changed and certain facts have only been intended to be added. The respondents have not filed any reply to the amendment application. No prejudice is caused to the defendant. The cause shown by the plaintiff for moving the amendment application at the later stage has been considered by the trial Court. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere in the matter. The revision fails and is dismissed. —————