Judgment : Petitioners were plaintiffs while respondents were defendants 1 to 5 and 7 to 14 in the suit. 2. Plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.102 of 1986 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai for declaration that they are the owners of the bus TNY.352 and are entitled to 1/8th share of the buses TNP.171 and TNX.7867 in the joint family business in transport, with 7/8th share in defendants 1 to 11 and consequently, for an injunction restraining the 12th defendant and his men from in any way disturbing or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of those buses by the joint family members, either by surrendering the permit to the Regional Transport Officer or by selling them. The basis of their claim relatable to the buses bearing registration numbers TNY.352 and TNP.171 was that they were purchased benami in the name of the 12th defendant for the joint family business. 3. It seems on the written statements filed by the contesting defendants, necessary issues have been framed and the suit had been listed for trial. 4. At that juncture, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.398 of 1993 under O.6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the pleadings, by addition of certain paragraph relatable to the existence of a partnership deed between the second plaintiff and defendants 7, 9, 12 and one Umaiyal Achi, in respect of those two buses and such aspect of the matter, by inadvertence, had not been pleaded in the plaint, at the of institution of the suit and such an amendment is not in any way to cause prejudice to any of the parties to the suit. 5. Such an application has been stoutly opposed by defendants 10 to 13 and the 12th defendant’s objections are twinfold, namely, (1) the opposed amendment, if allowed, would alter the nature and character of the suit from benami transaction into a partnership firm; and (2) it is highly belated. 6. Learned Subordinate Judge, on consideration of the materials, upholding the twinfold objections emerging from the 12th defendant, dismissed the said application, giving rise to the present action. 7. Arguments of Mr.K.Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and of Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan learned Senior Counsel for the caveator 12th defendant were heard. 6. Learned Subordinate Judge, on consideration of the materials, upholding the twinfold objections emerging from the 12th defendant, dismissed the said application, giving rise to the present action. 7. Arguments of Mr.K.Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and of Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan learned Senior Counsel for the caveator 12th defendant were heard. Though notices had been ordered and in fact served on the other contesting defendants, they did not choose to enter appearance through a counsel of their choice. 8. Axiomatic proposition of law it is that change of character of nature of the suit cannot be a ground for disallowing the amendment prayed for. Of course, change of the subject matter of the suit or cause of action may be a relevant consideration for disallowance of the amendment prayed for. But, in the case, on hand, it is not the case of the contesting 12 defendant that by allowing the amendment, either the cause of action will get changed or the subject matter of the suit is altered. Such being the case, no prejudice will be caused to the contesting 12th defendant, by allowing the amendment prayed for. As a consequence, the contesting defendants will have to be provided with an opportunity of filing additional written statement, if they so desired. 9. However, the said amendment had been sought for at a stage when the trial was about to commence, by listing the suit. Such delay or laches on the part of the plaintiffs again, could not, in the eye of law, be construed as a ground for disallowing the amendment. Such a delay or laches, if any can be compensated by ordering costs to the other side. What is required in such a circumstance, is that the parties should not suffer by such delay or laches and substantial justice must be rendered to them, by giving them full and free opportunity of pleading their cause before Court. 10. Therefore, the amendment prayed for will be allowed, on condition of the petitioners paying a sum of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One thousand only), as costs to the contesting 12th defendant on or before 27. 1994. Call on 27. 1994.