JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri R.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, Sri J.K. Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 and perused the record. 2. Facts, in brief, of the present case are Sri Ram Lal is the recorded tenure holder of Gata No.799, area 0.810 hectare situated in village Biduhani, Post Mahdiyiya, Pargana & Tehsil Ikauna District Shravasti (herein after referred as land in dispute). 3. Sri Sukh Ram/opposite party no.3 moved an application for mutation under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 before opposite party no.2 on the ground that he had purchased the land in dispute by way of sale-deed from Ram Lal. 4. Sri Doodh Nath/Petitioner son of Ram Lal has filed an objection. Subsequently, he moved an application for amendment in the objection filed by him with the prayer that in the objection the words may be allowed to be added as "Jo Mansik rog se beemar rahte the dawa" rejected by order dated 29.9.2009 passed by opposite party no.2, challenged by the petitioner by filing revision before opposite party no.1, dismissed by order dated 8.2.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that amendment which sought by the petitioner in the objection in mutation case filed on behalf of opposite party no.3 does not change the nature of the case as the same is necessary to resolve the controversy involved in the matter, so the impugned orders under challenge in the present writ petition are contrary to law , liable to be set aside. 6. Sri J.K.Sinha learned counsel for opposite party no.3/ Sukh Ram, who had purchased the land by way of sale-deed from Ram Lal, submits that the amendment as sought by the petitioner is an after thought the same change the stand already taken by the petitioner in his objection, so there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which are under challenge in the present writ petition. 7. He further submits that the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not apply in the present case as there are summary in the proceedings and also submits that in the matter in issue petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed which is pending before competent court, so the present writ petition liable to be dismissed. 8. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. No doubt the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature but so far as the matter in regard to amendment is concerned , the procedure as provided as provided under Order 6 Rule 17 applies in the said proceedings so in order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it is appropriate to go through the relevant provisions of amendment as provided under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., quoted as hereinunder: - "Order VI Rule 17- 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." 10. In view of the definition as given under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and after hearing the parties concerned the relevant and material word which exists in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in order to allow the amendment is "at any stage". 11. Thus, in a proceedings if necessary for the purpose of determination real fact sought to be brought by way of amendment in the controversy are important to its adjudication and decision can be allowed. 12. Amendment of the pleadings could be made at any stage or the proceedings. Instances are not wanting that pleadings are permitted to be amended even when second appeal is pending. Equally, it can be refused. But each case depends upon its own facts. The essential requisites are that the delay in making the application, the reason therefore should be given and considered, and there should be no prejudice caused to the other side. 13. Further, the whole object and purpose of Order VI Rule 17 CPC in the Code of Civil Procedure is to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings or to shorten the litigation and to settle the entire disputes at rest, though, however, any amendment should not or must not jeopardize the case of the other side in such a manner which goes to non suit the other side. 14. 14. Hon'ble the Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order VI Rule 17 time and again held that the amendment to written statement cannot be considered to the same principle as an amendment in the plaint. The pleas in the written statement may be alternative or on additional ground or to substitute the original plea. 15. In the case of Heerala Vs. Kalyan Mal, AIR 1998 SC 618 and in the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Ladha Ram & Co. AIR 1977 SC 680 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea. It has been also held that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement cannot be allowed. If such amendments are allowed in the written statement the plaintiff would be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admissions from defendants. 16. So taking into consideration the above said position , the order dated 8.2.2012 ( Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.1 and the order dated 29.9.2009 ( Annexure no.2) passed by opposite party no.2 are contrary to law , liable to be set aside. 17. For the foregoing reasons , the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 8.2.2012 ( Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.1 and the order dated 29.9.2009 ( Annexure no.2) passed by opposite party no.2 are set aside. Petitioner is permitted to incorporate the amendment as prayed by him in his objection thereafter mutation case be decided by opposite party no.2/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Ikauna District Sharavasti expeditiously in accordance with law