JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner herein is the defendant in Money Suit No.41 of 2018 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal West. The respondent, being the plaintiff, filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.639 of 2018 therein seeking to amend his plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. By order dated 18.05.2019, the Trial Court allowed the amendment on payment of costs. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant is before this Court. By order dated 03.06.2019, this Court stayed proceedings in the suit. 2. Heard Mr. T.Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant; and Mr. A.Jagjit Singh, learned counsel, for the respondent/plaintiff. 3. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 4. The case of the plaintiff, as per the original plaint averments, was that the defendant and he were known to each other since their childhood days and were also having a good family relationship. This statement was made in the context of how the alleged transaction took place between them. According to him, he lent a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- to the defendant at Bengaluru during September, 2015, when they had gone there for the college admission of their respective children. He claimed that the defendant gave him a cheque for the amount. It was on this basis that he filed the suit for recovery of the said amount. By way of his amendment petition in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.639 of 2018, the plaintiff claimed that certain typographical mistakes were made in the plaint averments. He wanted to insert the words 'husband of' between the words 'the' and 'defendant' in the first line of paragraph No.2 of the plaint. He therefore wanted to change his version to the effect that the husband of the defendant and he were known to each other since their childhood days and that they had a good family relationship. This was the only amendment that he sought. The Trial Court opined that this amendment did not change the character of the suit or bring about a different cause of action. The Trial Court further opined that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant as she would have an opportunity to amend her defence on this particular point. This was the only amendment that he sought. The Trial Court opined that this amendment did not change the character of the suit or bring about a different cause of action. The Trial Court further opined that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant as she would have an opportunity to amend her defence on this particular point. Noting that the trial was yet to commence in the suit, the Trial Court permitted the amendment on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. 5. Mr. T.Rajendra, learned counsel, would contend that the very basis for the money transaction, as set out in the plaint originally, was the so-called relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and, therefore, permitting him to alter that version amounted to a fundamental change of the pleadings, causing prejudice to the defendant. 6. Per contra, Mr. A.Jagjit Singh, learned counsel, relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed in this revision, would assert that except for explaining the factual situation as to how the parties knew each other, the nature of the suit and the basis for seeking recovery of the money remained unchanged and, therefore, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in permitting the amendment. 7. Normally, Courts would be liberal in permitting amendment of the pleadings before commencement of the trial in the suit, as in the case on hand. In Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia ( AIR 2018 SC 100 ), the Supreme Court observed that the question as to whether an amendment should be allowed or not would not depend upon whether the case proposed to be set up would eventually succeed or not and the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether the Trial Court has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. It was noted that the High Court would not sit as an appellate Court to review or reassess the evidence upon which the Trial Court passed the order. It was noted that the High Court would not sit as an appellate Court to review or reassess the evidence upon which the Trial Court passed the order. On the same lines, in Shri Yumnam Ibobi Singh and others v. Shri Yumnam Yaima Singh and others (AIR 1993 Gauhati 42), the Gauhati High Court summarized the power of the Court to allow amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and held that the provision was very wide as the Court could allow amendment of pleadings at any stage for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It was further held that the Court should reject the prayer for amendment if a fresh suit on the proposed amendment is barred by limitation and if there is delay in praying for the amendment, such delay must be explained to the satisfaction of the Court. As a general rule, per the Gauhati High Court, amendment of pleadings should not be allowed to set up a new case or a new cause of action and parties cannot be allowed to change their case completely by substituting an entirely new case. Again, in Dewan Mamataz Ali v. Mustt. Mehabuba Begam and others {1997 (II) GLT 608) 76}, the Gauhati High Court reiterated that all amendments necessary for the purpose of determining the question in controversy between the parties or for removing any defect or error in the proceeding should be allowed. It was held that such amendments would be subject to two conditions - 1) not working injustice to the other side; and 2) being necessary for the purpose of determining the question in controversy between the parties. It was further held that the amendment should not substitute one cause of action for another or bring about a total change in the subject matter of the suit. 8. Perusal of the material placed on record reflects that the defendant had filed a written statement in the suit putting forth an altogether different version as to how the parties came to know each other. 8. Perusal of the material placed on record reflects that the defendant had filed a written statement in the suit putting forth an altogether different version as to how the parties came to know each other. According to her, when they were looking for a medical college outside the State of Manipur for their daughter in the year 2015, one A.K.Bowjit Singh, who was a close friend of her husband, requested her husband to allow the plaintiff to join them, saying that the plaintiff was his brother-in-law and was also seeking to admit his daughter in MBBS Course. It is on this basis that the defendant claimed that they had gone together to Bengaluru. She admitted issuance of the cheque to him for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- but claimed that it was in completely different circumstances. 9. In effect, the amended version of the plaintiff also did not tally with what was stated by the defendant in her written statement. He therefore did not take a cue from her written statement to alter his stand. What is crucial, however, is that the defendant did not deny execution of the cheque in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- but she claimed that such issuance was due to entirely different reasons and not for those put forward by the plaintiff. This disputed issue of fact would have to be subjected to evidence and proof during the trial. However, once the execution of the cheque stands admitted and the plaintiff seeks recovery of the amount mentioned in the said cheque, mere change of how the parties came to know each other would not have a vital effect upon the nature of the suit. As rightly pointed out by the Trial Court, it would be open to the defendant to file an additional written statement, if she wants to assert that any prejudice was caused to her and lead evidence on that count during the course of the trial. 10. In S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and others ( AIR 1994 SC 853 ), it was observed that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. This judgment is relied upon by Mr. 10. In S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and others ( AIR 1994 SC 853 ), it was observed that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. This judgment is relied upon by Mr. T.Rajendra, learned counsel, on the ground that the initial plaint averment to the effect that the plaintiff and the defendant were known to each other since childhood was clearly a falsehood and, therefore, the plaintiff deserves to be non-suited on that ground. However, as already pointed out supra, once the execution of the cheque in favour of the plaintiff stands admitted, the fundamental issue to be tried and resolved is the circumstance in which the said cheque came to be issued. The foundation for the relationship between the parties is only an incidental issue and does not go to the root of the matter. Further, the plaintiff explained that the initial incorrect averment was due to a typographical error. This judgment is therefore of no avail to the defendant. 11. On the above analysis, this Court finds no error having been committed by the Trial Court in permitting the amendment. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 03.06.2019 shall stand vacated. The Trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.