JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and Sri A.K.Chaurasiya, learned A.C.S.C. for State. 2. The Gram Panchayat Arazi Phulaiech Bogariya, Pargana- Belha Bans, Tehsil- Mehnagar, District- Azamgarh has filed a suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (a declaratory suit by tenant holder) against petitioner that land in dispute be recorded in the name of Gram Sabha in 2018. 3. The suit was proceeded in said form and a written statement was filed by defendant/petitioner and it appears that evidence has also been recorded. At this stage, plaintiff/ Gram Sabha has filed an Amendment Application dated 06.04.2023 i.e. after 5 years that the suit was wrongly nomenclatured under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and instead of it, it ought to be under Section 145 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (a declaratory suit by Gram Panchayat). The contents of said application are reproduced hereinafter :- 4. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submits that detail objections were filed on 10.08.2023 to the amendment application and he refers few paragraphs of it, which are reproduced hereinafter :- 5. Learned Trial Court considered the contents of application and objections filed thereon and allowed the amendment by order dated 01.02.2024 and for reference, relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :- 6. The petitioner/defendant being aggrieved by above order filed a revision petition before Board of Revenue, raising various grounds, however, the same has been dismissed by order dated 04.04.2024 and for reference, relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :- 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that amendment application at belated stage is barred by Order VI Rule 17 CPC, since it has been filed not only after commencement of trial but at the fag end of it. Learned counsel also submits that by changing the nomenclature of suit, is nothing but to avoid a situation where the suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was likely to be dismissed for no cause of action. 8. An objection to this effect has already been filed at the behest of defendants and, therefore, anticipating that the suit may be dismissed, at belated stage, the Gram Panchayat has filed the amendment application which was nothing but after a thought process and, therefore, could not be allowed. 9. 8. An objection to this effect has already been filed at the behest of defendants and, therefore, anticipating that the suit may be dismissed, at belated stage, the Gram Panchayat has filed the amendment application which was nothing but after a thought process and, therefore, could not be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that there are certain preconditions to file a suit under Section 145 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has not been fulfilled and that impugned orders being illegal are liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned A.C.S.C. for State has supported the impugned order that by changing the nomenclature of suit without any amendment in the pleadings is not an amendment which could cause prejudice to petitioner even at belated stage. It was a typographical error since no suit could be filed by Gram Sabha under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, since it would be filed only by tenant holder and suit could be filed by Gram Panchayat only under Section 145 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 11. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record. 12. Before adverting to the rival submissions, few paragraphs of judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjiv Builders Private and another , (2022) 16 SCC 1 being relevant and are reproduced hereinafter :- "71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: 71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. 71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC. 71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC. 71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and (c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr.Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .)" 13. It is not under dispute that amendment was sought only in nomenclature of suit that instead of considering it to be under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it may be considered under Section 145 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Admittedly no amendment was sought in pleadings i.e. plaint as well as the relief sought. No amendment has been sought on issues framed and suit has still to be decided on basis of pleadings and in case, there are lacunae in pleadings, so far as if any precondition exists to file a suit under Section 145 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, that has to be suffered by plaintiff i.e. the Gram Panchayat. 14. A reference may be taken of Order VI Rule 1 CPC i.e. the pleadings which shall be plaint or written statement as well as its Rule 2 which states that pleadings to state material fact and not evidence and also Rule 4 of it, which provides particulars to be given where necessary. 15. 14. A reference may be taken of Order VI Rule 1 CPC i.e. the pleadings which shall be plaint or written statement as well as its Rule 2 which states that pleadings to state material fact and not evidence and also Rule 4 of it, which provides particulars to be given where necessary. 15. The aforesaid provision does not specifically provide about nomenclature of suit and it is well settled that only on ground of wrong nomenclature a petition or a proceedings may not be rejected if the contents of application or plaint or petition are sufficient and in present case that no amendment was sought in pleadings, therefore, the suit has to be decided on basis of pleadings only and relief sought. 16. As referred above in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) the issue of amendment is being considered at length and conclusions have been summarized as referred above and that provides that a prayer for amendment is referred to be allowed unless it changes the nature of suit or the amendment is malafide. 17. In the present case, only by amendment of Section under which suit has been filed without making any amendment in pleadings and relief does not change the nature of suit. The plaintiff has not sought any amendment in pleadings even on issue framed or evidence as well as not sought that any further evidence be allowed on his behalf. It has already been observed that in case, a suit under Section 145 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is required any precondition and since no amendment is being sought in that regard and, therefore, if it goes adverse to the case of plaintiff, it will be at their risk only. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court also takes note of paragraph 71.11 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) that amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, therefore, there is no ground to interfere with impugned orders and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.