JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):- Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.10.2013 (Annexure P/6) passed by leaned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, whereby application for amendment of the plaint filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff has been allowed. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that respondent no.1-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is adopted son of defendant no.3 and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, parties were afforded opportunity to lead their evidence. Thereafter, plaintiff came to know that certain facts with regard to a previous suit have not been pleaded which are material for just decision of the case and application for amendment was moved which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 16.10.2013 (Annexure P/6) by the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that amendment will change the nature of the suit and is based on different cause of action and same is sought at highly belated stage with mala fide intention. Learned counsel further contended that Lal Chand – defendant no.3 has also filed written statement and now he has expired. In case the amendment is allowed, then the written statement which has been filed earlier by defendant no.3 will be a waste paper and cannot be read as a part of pleadings and further de novo trial will commence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others, [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 700] : 2012(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 903, judgments of this Court in Bahadur Singh and another vs. Avtar Singh, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 44, Inder Pal Singh vs. Bankey Bihari, 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 210, judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Ratan Singh and another vs. Ram Prasad and others, 2002(3) CivCC 43 and judgments of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Smt. Ramwanti Devi vs. Shekh Irshad and others, 2012(4) CivCC 48 and Dinesh Kumar and another vs. District Judge, Raibareli and others, 2012(4) CivCC 33. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1- plaintiff submits that the amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1- plaintiff submits that the amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature. No evidence pertaining to amendment will be led by the plaintiff except the documentary evidence in the shape of public documents. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner-defendant as he will have an opportunity to rebut the same. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 further contended that in view of latest judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman and another vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others, [2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 4726 : 2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3486 (SC)] : 2012(4) RCR (Civil) 481, the basic power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each case. The amendment is necessary for just decision of the case and to resolve the controversy pending between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that another suit is pending which has to be decided along with this suit. The amendment is in the interest of both the parties to completely resolve the controversy and is necessary to meet the ends of justice. 6. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned trial Court, after considering the material on record, has come to a conclusion that the amendment sought by plaintiff is of general nature and if allowed will not cause any prejudice to the defendants. Furthermore, procedural law is hand-maiden to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused amendment merely because of some mistake, negligent or inadvertent, committed while filing a suit. 8. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is a reasoned order. Otherwise also, in view of Abdul Rehman’s case (supra), this Court is of the considered view that this amendment will not change the nature of the plaint. Since learned counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff has made statement before this Court that no oral evidence is to be led except documentary evidence which is of general nature and public documents, the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the same. Since learned counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff has made statement before this Court that no oral evidence is to be led except documentary evidence which is of general nature and public documents, the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the same. Even the petitioner will have right to file written statement and can lead further evidence in the facts of the case. The trial Court has already recorded such observation in the impugned order. Even the trial Court has compensated the petitioner by awarding costs for delay in filing the amendment application. As such, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that written statement filed by defendant no.3 will not be taken into consideration is misconceived. Once the written statement is on record, it is a part of the pleadings. 10. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------