V. B. BANSAL ( 1 ) MUNICIPAL Corporation of Delhi has filed this revision petition against the order dated 4. 3. 1993 of Shri Bhola Dutt, Sub-Judge, Delhi, vide which application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, moved by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Model Town Owners and Residents Society (Regd.), respondent herein, filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioner praying that they be restrained from constructing multi-storeyed building on the land/park facing property bearing No. F- 14/31 to F-14/40, Model Town, Delhi. An application under Order XXXIX Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was also filed by the plaintiff/respondent in which an injunction order was passed, restraining the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from raising the construction. ( 3 ) AN appeal against the said injunction order was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which came up before Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 4. 5. 1989, in which a statement was made by counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi that after the passing of the impugned order the lay out plan has been amended in accordance with law and, so, a prayer was made for permission to withdraw the appeal and it was submitted that the appellant would move an application in the Trial Court for amendment of the written statement and for vacation of the injunction order. A statement was also made by counsel for the respondent that they had no objection if on the alleged facts the appellant moved the Trial Court for vacation of the injunction order and it was without prejudice to their rights. In these circumstances, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with an observation that the Trial Court may consider the application if filed by the applicant for amendment of the written statement and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ( 4 ) IT is after the passing of the said order by the Appellate Court that an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code was moved by the defendant/petitioner for amendment of the written statement. ( 4 ) IT is after the passing of the said order by the Appellate Court that an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code was moved by the defendant/petitioner for amendment of the written statement. It was pleaded in the application that there were in all 8 Higher Secondary Schools; 11 Primary Schools and 37 Nursery Schools in an area of about 72. 40 acres and nut of the said 11 Primary Schools proposed three are already existing, which have been retained at their present place. It was also pleaded that the Standing Committee vide its Resolution No. 1485, Item No. 39, has approved the site and change of land use for location of Primary School in Block F-14, Model Town, Delhi, as per the provisions of Sections 312 and 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, which amendment was in conformity with the Building Bye-laws and Zonal Regulations of the Master Plan. A prayer was made for permission to amend Para 8 of the Preliminary Objections; and Para Nos. 3, 6, 12 and 15 of the Written Statement,mentioning the aforesaid facts. ( 5 ) THIS application was Opposed by the plaintiff respondent. It was inter alia pleaded in the reply that the application was not maintainable and the proposed amendments were not necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. It was also pleaded that the Standing Committee could not change the Park into a School. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application vide the impugned order. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts have been liberal in permitting the amendment of the pleadings and in the instant case the petitioner had made an application for amendment of the written statement bringing on record the factum of the Zonal Plan having been amended by the Standing Committee vide which the area in dispute has been earmarked for the purposes of a School. It is also submitted that this application has been based on the facts which have come into existence after the filing of the written statement and these are necessary for the just decision of the case. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the impugned order may be set aside and the application for amendment of the written statement may be allowed. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the impugned order may be set aside and the application for amendment of the written statement may be allowed. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that it was not open to the Standing Committee to pass the Resolution and the Petitioner had no right to apply for the amendment which is not at all necessary for the decision of the case. It has also been submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and a prayer has, therefore, been made that the revision petition may also be dismissed. ( 8 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissions and am clearly of the view that the learned Trial Court has committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the application for amendment of the writen statement - the plea of the petitioner in the written statement had been that the Primary School had been in existence since 1959 where a prefabricated building was in existence and it was only to provide belter facilities that a three-storeyed building was to be constructed. The proposed amendment of the petitioner has been that the Standing Committee has by a Resolution amended the lay out plan under which this has been car marked for a School. The question as to whether it was open to the Standing Committee to permit the amendment and whether the defendant is entitled to take any advantage of the proposed amendment has necessarily to be gone into during trial. There can possibly be no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that while deciding an application for amendment the Court is not supposed to go into the merits and demerits of amendment and express an opinion one way or the other. Reference in this regard can be made to the Case T. P. Palaniswami and another Vs. Deivanaiammal and others (AIR 1984 Madras 19 ). which has relied upon the judgement of this Court in me case Mangal Doss Suit Ram Cuuha Vs. Union of India and. Others (Alr 1973 Delhi 96 ). ( 9 ) IN-VIEW of my aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4. 3. 1993 is set aside and the application for amendment moved by the petitioner is allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 500. Union of India and. Others (Alr 1973 Delhi 96 ). ( 9 ) IN-VIEW of my aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4. 3. 1993 is set aside and the application for amendment moved by the petitioner is allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 500. 00 as costs, which is conditional and would be payable before the learned Trial Court. Petitioner/ respondent shall he entitled to costs. Parties to appear before the learned Trial Court dt. 20. 9. 1993.