Manoj Misra,J. Heard Sri Siddharth Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the contesting respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioners, who are defendants in a suit filed by contesting respondents, have challenged the order dated 13th December, 2001, passed by Special Judge, Court No.5, Deoria in Civil Appeal No.46 of 1996, by which application no.43 Ka2 preferred by the plaintiff-respondent for amendment of plaint has been allowed on payment of cost of Rs.200/-. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court and that the amendment has been applied for at a very belated stage, during the pendency of the appeal. It has further been submitted that during the appeal earlier an application was filed by one of the plaintiff for similar amendment in the plaint, which was got dismissed as not pressed, therefore, a fresh application for that purpose was not maintainable. 4. Per contra, the submission of learned counsel for the contesting respondent is that earlier the defendant had set up a case in the written statement that the property in dispute was settled by Raja Awadhesh Pratap in the year 1972 whereas later, by way of amendment, a plea was taken that the settlement was made on 10th March, 1951 in favour of the defendant, who were Radhey Shyam and his wife Chandrawati. It has been submitted that in the year 1951, Chandrawati was not married to Radhey Shyam, therefore, the alleged settlement was completely bogus and fraudulent and, therefore, in order to decide the real controversy in the matter, an amendment of the plaint was sought for by introducing a plea that on 10th March, 1951 i.e. the date of the alleged settlement, Radhey Shyam and Chandrawati were not married to each other. It has further been submitted that the amendment, which had been sought for, does not change the nature of the case and that the earlier rejection of the amendment application as not pressed, would not bar the subsequent application by principles of res-judicata. 5. Having considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the Court finds that the amendment in the plaint does not change the nature of the case. 5. Having considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the Court finds that the amendment in the plaint does not change the nature of the case. Since admittedly the written statement was amended taking a plea that the land in suit was settled in favour of the defendants on 10th March, 1951, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff so as to incorporate the plea that on the date concerned, the defendants were not married to each other becomes relevant and has been necessitated by the subsequent amendment of the written statement. 6. More so, it is settled law that amendment can be allowed at any stage, provided it does not change the nature of the case or causes serious prejudice to the other side. In this case, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the other side, which cannot be compensated by cost. Moreover, the defendants can file an additional written statement. 7. At this stage, it may also be observed that the suit as well as the order allowing the amendment pertains to a period when Order VI, Rule 17 CPC was not amended so as to impose restriction on the Court to allow the amendment after commencement of trial. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. 9. The writ petition has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________