JUDGMENT M.R. Mullick, J. This revision petition at the instance of four defendants in Title Suit no. 24/86 is directed against order no 99 dated 7.8.90 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore, rejecting the petitioners' application for amendment of the written statement. 2. The facts, which are necessary to dispose of this petition, may be briefly stated as follows: Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff brought the above suit before the learned trial Judge for recovery of possession of the suit property from the present petitioners and other defendants on the allegations that he is the owner of the property and that the defendants of the said suit have trespassed into the pT0perty during his absence and are occupying the same as such trespassers having no legal right therein. 3. The present petitioners along with others were contesting the above suit by filing a written statement. They have filed an application on 191.90 under Or. 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praring for amendment of the written statement by deleting the original paragraph 6 of the written statement and incorporating the portions sought to be amended in paragraph 6. 4. The present opposite party no. 1, the plaintiff in the original suit. opposed the said application on the ground that by the proposed amendment the present petitioners wanted to make out a new case of fraud which did not find place in the original written statement and such a new case of fraud could not be entertained by the learned Judge by way of amendment. The learned Judge accepted the contention of the present opposite party no.1 that no defence of fraud has been .alleged in the written statement by the defendants and now in the proposed amendment they want to bring a new defence of fraud. Under the established principle of law, at this stage the allegation of fraud cannot be permitted to be added by way of amendment as a defence of the defendants. With this observation the learned Judge dismissed the application for amendment of the written statement. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have moved this Court in revision. 6. Under the established principle of law, at this stage the allegation of fraud cannot be permitted to be added by way of amendment as a defence of the defendants. With this observation the learned Judge dismissed the application for amendment of the written statement. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have moved this Court in revision. 6. It is submitted that it is not correct to say that there was no allegation of fraud in the original written statement, that there was such allegation no doubt, but there were no better particulars regarding the allegation of fraud and that is why paragraph 6 of the original written statement, as it stood originally, is sought to be deleted to give those particulars of fraud by way of better particulars and. in that view, the ground on which the learned trial Judge has rejected the application, was not correct and the learned Judge ought to have allowed the application for amendment of the written statement. It is also submitted that the amendment of written statement under the established principle of law as laid down by- the Supreme Court and different High Courts including our High Court stands on a different footing from the plaint, that a new plea even though not generally allowed to be raised in a plaint after limitation, but with regard to the written statement, that is not the position. It is contended that when in this case no serious injustice would be caused to the plaintiff by this additional plea for which there was indication even though in a very dormant form in the written statement, should not have been rejected. It is submitted that their plea is bono fide and that the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of resolving the real controversy in the suit. 7. Mr. Das Gupta appealing on behalf of the opposite parties refutes the above contontion of the petitioners. It is submitted that their plea is bono fide and that the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of resolving the real controversy in the suit. 7. Mr. Das Gupta appealing on behalf of the opposite parties refutes the above contontion of the petitioners. it is submitted that even if it be true that the amendment of written statement stands on a different footing from the plaint and a now case not made out in the original written statement might be permitted by way of amendment and that there is no question of limitation involved when such a new case is sought to be made out in the written statement but according to him, the law as regards the introduction of new plea of fraud, so far as the plaint and written statement are concerned, is the same. He has also referred to two decisions, namely, 14 IA 111 at p. 121 and AIR 1965 SC 1008 . In AIR 1965 SC 1008 (The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Pancham), when before the appellate Bench of the High Court of Bombay an amendment was sought for by the plaintiffs for making out a case of which there was not the slightest basis in the plaint as it originally stood the Supreme Court has observed that the amendment of such plaint introducing such a new case of fraud should not be allowed. In the Privy Council decision of 14 IA 111, the Privy Council also approved the rejection of the amendment of the plaint by which the plaintiff wanted to introduce a new allegation of fraud for which no such plea was made in the original plaint. In both the decisions the question arose as to whether a new case of fraud should be allowed to be introduced by way of amendment of the plaint. Mr. Das gupta has not been able to produce any decision of Supreme Court or High Court in which any court of law in our country has rejected any amendment of the written statement in which a case of fraud is sought to be made out by amendment of the written statement. However, he has referred to an English decision reported in Times-Low Reports Vol. IX. page 580, (Bentley & Co. However, he has referred to an English decision reported in Times-Low Reports Vol. IX. page 580, (Bentley & Co. (Ltd) v. Black) in which Lord Esher, M R. has observed as follows: “It had for a longtime been the universal practice, except in the most exceptional circumstances, not to allow an amendment for the purpose of adding a plea of fraud where fraud had not been pleaded in the first instance." That decision, it may be pointed out, was in respect of whether a new plea of fraud could be introduced by way of defence. 8. On perusal of the above decision we find that the Master of Rolls Lord Esher was not considering any amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant. This was an action brought by a limited company to recover calls in respect of certain shares which had been allotted to the defendant. The defence was that the defendant had been induced to take the shares in question by misrepresentations contained in a prospectus. The learned trial Judge held that no such case had been made out in support of the defence and directed a verdict and gave judgment for the plaintiff. In appeal the defendant applied for a new trial. The Master of the Rolls rejected the said application on the ground that there was no colour for the appeal. He also observed that the action was brought against a person who had accepted the shares in the plaintiff company and he now said that he had been induced to enter into contract to take the shares by a fraudulent misrepresentation. The said application was contested on the ground that the fraud had not been pleaded, neither had any amendment been made for the purpose of setting up a plea of fraud. The learned Judge accepted both the contentions and rejected the appeal. But the observation, which has already been recorded above, was not an observation which was necessary for deciding the appeal. It could only be treated as an obiter dictum. Moreover, even though in Mulla’s Code of Civil Procedure this observation of the Master of Rolls has been quoted with approval, yet we are of the view that this obiter dictum cannot be held to be of universal application while considering the amendment of written statement in our country which is governed by the provision of Or. Moreover, even though in Mulla’s Code of Civil Procedure this observation of the Master of Rolls has been quoted with approval, yet we are of the view that this obiter dictum cannot be held to be of universal application while considering the amendment of written statement in our country which is governed by the provision of Or. 6 Rule 17 of the Code. So far as the amendment of the pleadings is concerned the decisions of the Supreme Court and of High Courts are uniform that the amendment is to be allowed liberally. Even in respect of the amendment of the plaint there are some restrictions put as regards the allowing of the amendment when as a result of the lapse of time a valuable right has accrued in favour of the defendant. By the law of limitation a new case of fraud for which there was absolutely no basis, had also not been accepted as a good ground for allowing the amendment to introduce such a plea of fraud. But, so far as the amendment of the written statement is concerned, the Division Bench of our High Court approved a single Bench decision of P. B. Mukharji, J. in A.I.R 1953 Cal.15 in appeal AIR 1982 Cal, 555 (Prasanta Ch. Sen v. United Commercial Bank). In that decision the Division Bench presided over by Sabyasachi Mukharji J., as is Lordship then was, has clearly held that inconsistent claim can be made in the written statement by amendment. The Division Bench has, however, observed that amendment of the written statement may be refused if it is found that such application is mala fide or the same is not necessary for determining the real controversy in the suit. Therefore, even if it be conceded, which the learned Advocate for the petitioners does not admit, that a new plea of fraud is sought to be introduced by way of amendment of written statement when an inconsistent plea can be taken by the defendant in the written statement, then we are of the view that such inconsistent plea or a new case of fraud. if made in the written statement, that by itself would not be a ground for refusal if however, the petitioners could prove that they were not actuated by any mala fide motive and that the proposed amendment would be necessary deciding the real controversy in the suit. 9. Mr. if made in the written statement, that by itself would not be a ground for refusal if however, the petitioners could prove that they were not actuated by any mala fide motive and that the proposed amendment would be necessary deciding the real controversy in the suit. 9. Mr. Das Gupta has strenuously argued that the present application for amendment is actuated by mala fide motive. It is submitted that 1he petitioners have already brought a suit against the plaintiff and one Mr. Sandhar against whom he had made all the allegations in the original written statement and sought to stay the present suit till the disposal of the suit filed by them. They became unsuccessful. He also submits that an application for addition of Mr. Sandhar has bean made in this suit which has been opposed by the opposite party no.1 of this petition and the learned Judge rejected the said application and the same has been confirmed by the High Court in revision. He submits that after all his attempts to stifle the progress of the suit failed, the present application for amendment was made when the evidence was going on. He, therefore, submits that the motive of the present petitioners was to delay the present suit and not with bona fide motive and that the proposed amendment would not be necessary for deciding the real controversy in the suit. 10. We are of the view that only because of the previous occasions the application was made for staying the present suit till the disposal of the suit filed by the present petitioners and the present petition has been filed after that attempt has failed and also after The attempt to bring Sandhar as a party to the proceeding has failed, the application cannot be held to have been filed with mala fide motive. Moreover, the application was filed when the evidence was going on and only there was delay in filing such an application, it cannot be said this was done with mala fide motive. We have carefully gone through the proposed amendment. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the ld. Judge's finding that the petitioners have sought to make out a new case of fraud is not correct. We have carefully gone through the proposed amendment. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the ld. Judge's finding that the petitioners have sought to make out a new case of fraud is not correct. He draws our attention to the original written statement and has weight to urge that the plea of fraud, though in a very rudimentary or dormant form, was very much there in the original written statement. The defendants wanted to make those allegations more prominent by giving better particulars. Our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 8-10 of the written statement. In paragraph 9 we find that the present petitioners alleged that they are not wrongful occupiers but tenants under Sandhar wherein the plaintiff is the mere name-lender. In paragraph 10 the petitioners have alleged that Sandhar purchased the suit property, erected structures thereon but procured some-documents with the help of some staff for the purpose of creating a different case which are false, fraudulent and sham papers In paragraph 12 it is alleged that the plaintiff is none but the name lender who has been playing the puppet from behind the screen. There are in substance the allegations in the original written statement. These allegations, in our view, are the allegations of fraud and collusion between the plaintiff and Mr. Sandhar. In the proposed amendment application in paragraph 2 the defendants have alleged that they have pleaded fraud and in paragraph 2 they have also stated that better particulars need be furnished in the written statement or else, these defendants will be precluded from leading evidence in respect of collusion and mi, representation. Therefore, the petitioners claimed that they wanted to incorporate better particulars in respect of their allegation of fraud as described in schedule 'A' to the petition. 11. Even though we agree with Mr. Das Gupta that in the original written statement there is no specific plea of fraud being alleged against the present plaintiff, hut it has been averred that he is in Collusion with Mr. Sandhar who, according to the defendants, is the real owner of the suit property. Therefore, we are unable to hold that there was no allegation of fraud even in some rudimentary way in the original plaint. The allegation of fraud that was there in the written statement, was really vague. Sandhar who, according to the defendants, is the real owner of the suit property. Therefore, we are unable to hold that there was no allegation of fraud even in some rudimentary way in the original plaint. The allegation of fraud that was there in the written statement, was really vague. Therefore, if by way of better particulars the present petitioners wanted to make further particulars of such allegations of fraud, we are of the view that, in view of the legal position as regards the ground or grounds for amendment of the written statement, such an application for amendment should not have been rejected by the Judge only on the ground that by way of proposed amendment a new case of fraud is sought to be made out by the present petitioners 12. In view of the above we allow the present revision petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the application for amendment filed by the present petitioners be allowed As, in the meantime, the evidence of the plaintiff has already been closed, the learned Judge shall give liberty to the present plaintiff to meet the new allegations' that have been made in paragraph 6 of the written statement as amended by leading further evidence and after giving the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 an opportunity to adduce further evidence the learned Judge shall permit the defendants to adduce evidence. Since the suit is pending since 1985, the learned Judge shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. The plaintiff opposite party no.1 shall be paid Rs.100/- as costs by the petitioner. No order is made as to costs in this application. M.N. Roy, J. : I agree. Application allowed; impugned order set aside, direction given