R.C. Lahoti, C.J:

1. Leave granted.

2. The plaintiff-appellant is admittedly owner-cum-landlord of the suit property. He filed a suit for eviction against the respondent tenant. The proceedings in the suit were at a final stage when the plaintiff-appellant moved an application for amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendment sought the correction of the description of the suit premises in the plaint. It was alleged by the plaintiff-appellant that the description of the property given in the rent note itself was incorrect and the same description was repeated in the plaint and there would be complications at the stage of execution to avoid which the description of the suit premises as given in the plaint needed to be corrected.

3. The prayer for amendment was opposed on behalf of the defendant-respondent. The principal ground for opposition was that although the defendant-respondent had taken the plea in the written statement itself that the suit premises were not correctly described, yet the plaintiff-appellant proceeded with the trial of the suit and did not take care to seek the amendment at an early stage.

4. The trial court rejected the prayer for amendment. The civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant has filed the present appeal by special leave.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be allowed as the trial court, while rejecting the prayer for amendment has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and by the failure to so exercise it, has occasioned a possible failure of justice. Such an error committed by the trial court was liable to be corrected by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, even if Section 115 Civil Procedure Code would not have been strictly applicable. It is true that the plaintiff-appellant ought to have been diligent in promptly seeking the amendment in the plaint at an early stage of the suit, more so when the error on the part of the plaintiff was pointed out by the defendant in the written statement itself. Still, we are of the opinion that the proposed amendment was necessary for the purpose of bringing to the fore the real question in controversy between the parties and the refusal to permit the amendment would create needless complications at the stage of execution in the event of the plaintiff-appellant succeeding in the suit.

6. The appeal is allowed. The order of the trial court dated 29-4-2002 rejecting the plaintiff-appellants application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code and the impugned order of the High Court dated 11-12-2003 are set aside. The application for amendment filed by the plaintiff-appellant shall stand allowed but subject to payment of Rs. 1000(one thousand only) by way of costs to the defendant-respondent on or before 7-10-2005 as a condition precedent for permitting the amendment.

7. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 26-9-2005.

8. No order as to the costs in this appeal.