JUDGMENT - R.K. Batta, J.:---This Revision is directed against order of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem, allowing amendment sought by the respondent (defendant in the suit). 2.In order to appreciate the controversy relating to the amendment, it is necessary to briefly enumerate the facts : Petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) claimed to be co-owner of property surveyed under No. 28/2 that the defendant has his common residential house in property under Survey No. 28/1 which also belongs to plaintiff and his family members; that in the month of December 1990, plaintiff noticed that the defendant without his consent and that of his brothers, had embarked upon construction of laterite masonry structure admeasuring 7 x 7 metres; that the matter was sought to be amicably settled and the plaintiff agreed to sell an area of 72 square metres to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- of which a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid on the date of the execution of Agreement on 7-12-1990 and the balance amount of Rs. 4,000/- was payable in 4 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000/- each payable on 17th January, 1991, 17th February, 1991, 17th March, 1991 and 17th April, 1991. Clause 2 of the said Agreement provided that in the event defendant failed to pay any instalment of the balance amount of sale price in time, then the purchaser shall forthwith demolish the construction without raising any dispute; the instalments were not paid resulting in filing a suit by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction to demolish the suit construction covering an area of 72 square metres in Survey No. 28/2. This relief is apparently sought in view of Clause 2 of the Agreement for sale. 3.The defendant did not dispute the ownership of Survey Nos. 28/1 and 28/2 of the plaintiff and his brothers. However, the case of defendant is that there was already a structure which the defendant had repaired/ re-constructed; that the said old structure was used for the purpose of storing and the defendant thereafter started residing therein. The defence case further is that the plaintiff agreed to sell the land occupied by the suit construction for Rs. 5,000/-; and the defendant paid a sum of Rs. The defence case further is that the plaintiff agreed to sell the land occupied by the suit construction for Rs. 5,000/-; and the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/-; the defendant expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement, namely, the payment of the balance amount, but the plaintiff has failed to execute the document by clearing the title of the same. The defendant blamed the plaintiff for non-execution of the sale and filed counter-claim seeking direction to the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit construction. The first date for filing of the written statement was 30th January, 1992 and the written statement in question was filed on 5-3-1992. 4.On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 25th September, 1992 and the matter was fixed for evidence. Somewhere in the year 1993, the defendant filed an application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 r/w 151 C.P.C. By the said amendment application, the defendant sought to introduce following amendments : (1)"That the suit is barred by the law of limitation, in so much so that the same has been filed after more than 3 years after the construction of the alleged 'suit house with enlargement'"; (2)"That the alleged 'suit house with enlargement' is the Mundkarial dwelling house of the defendant and the defendant, his mother alongwith their ancestors have been in occupation and possession of the same for the last more than 30 years. As such, this Hon'ble Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit, as the same involves issue of Mundkarship which has to be decided only by the Court of Mamlatdar". The ground on which the amendments were sought was that the amendments were necessary for determining real controversy between the parties and no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if the said amendments are allowed. The reasons for not including the said amendments initially in the written statement were inadvertence and that the written statement was filed hurriedly. 5.These amendments were strongly objected to by the plaintiff on the grounds that the same were mala fide and would introduce a totally new case by including plea of Mundkarship which was never pleaded in the written statement as well as in the counter-claim. 5.These amendments were strongly objected to by the plaintiff on the grounds that the same were mala fide and would introduce a totally new case by including plea of Mundkarship which was never pleaded in the written statement as well as in the counter-claim. Another ground on which the amendment was objected was that the entire suit was based upon Agreement dated 17-12-1990 and, in fact, if I may point out further, even the counter-claim was based upon the said Agreement dated 17-12-1990. 6.The trial Judge noted down the arguments of the respective parties in the impugned order and stated that he has not been able to appreciate plaintiff's arguments. After relying upon judgment of the Apex Court in (A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation)1, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 96, which was cited by the plaintiff, it was held by the trial Judge that defence of Mundkarship could be taken by way of amendment and it would not amount to a new cause of action to the counter-claim of the defendant. 7.Learned Advocate Shri A.P. Cardozo has urged three points, namely, that the amendment sought by the respondent seeks to withdraw admission contained in the plaint; that it introduces a new case and, thirdly, that all the facts which the respondent seeks to introduce by amendment were already known to him and that the amendment in such circumstances could not have been granted by the trial Court. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon a number of authorities, namely, (Francisco Oliveira v. Piedada Almeida)2, A.I.R. 1970 Goa 93, (M/s. Modi Spinning Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Company)3, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 680, (Haji Mohammed Ishaq wd. S.K. Mohammed and others v. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Company)4, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 798, (M/s. Bansi Lal Ganpat Rai v. Bhoj Raj and another)5, A.I.R. 1980 H.P. 39 and (Shri Singh Vijay Shankar and others v. Mourya Ramsurat Rampyare and others)6, 1994(1) Mah.L.R. 236. S.K. Mohammed and others v. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Company)4, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 798, (M/s. Bansi Lal Ganpat Rai v. Bhoj Raj and another)5, A.I.R. 1980 H.P. 39 and (Shri Singh Vijay Shankar and others v. Mourya Ramsurat Rampyare and others)6, 1994(1) Mah.L.R. 236. 8.On the other hand, advocate Shri Talaulikar has submitted that the discretion which has been exercised by the trial Court cannot be disturbed in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court; that the normal rule is that the amendments to written statements are to be allowed unless the same cause prejudice to the opposite party; that by amendment, the respondent wants to have additional approach to the facts in controversy and that the amendment sought was necessary for determining the real controversy and to effectively settle the same between the parties. He relies upon (Amolakchand Mohanlal v. Firm of Sadhuram Tularam and others)7, A.I.R. 1954 Nagpur 200, (M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram)8, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 484, (Maitreyee Banerjee v. Prabir Kumar Mukherjee)9, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 17, (Haridas Aildas Thadani and others v. Godrej Rustom Kermani)10, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 319 and (Bhaskar Chandra Behera and others v. Ranital Rice Mill Co. and others)11, A.I.R. 1983 Orissa 77. 9.There is no doubt that the approach of the courts while dealing with the amendment applications has to be rather liberal and the revisional Court would not normally interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court in allowing the amendment in the absence of cogent reasons or compelling circumstances. However, the main thread which runs through the rulings on the subject is that the amendment should be necessary for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between the parties; that it should not work injustice to the other side; that it should not change substantially the nature of controversy between the parties and should not be prompted with mala fide considerations besides other considerations to be taken into account in view of special circumstances of the case. It is no doubt true that the rules and procedure are handmaid of justice and are not to be utilized as bobby trap for unwary suiters, but it does not mean that under the guise of the said rules or procedure, amendments are to be granted as a matter-of-course only without taking into account relevant principles and considerations for grant of amendment applications. 10.The plaintiff is para 3 of the plaint had stated that the defendant had a common residential house in the property under Survey No. 28/1 and there was no denial whatsoever of this fact in the written statement. The plaintiff's case further was that in December, 1970, he had noticed that defendant, without his knowledge and consent and that of his brothers, had made laterite masonry structure admeasuring 7 x 7 metres which was subsequently enlarged to 72 square metres. In this respect, the contention of the defendant in para 2 of the written statement was that the structure already existed for the purpose of storing and the defendant, thereafter, started residing therein. Since when the said structure was existing and since when the defendant started residing in the said structure were not conveniently disclosed by the defendant in the written statement. The parties agreed that the said area of 72 square metres covering the said construction would be sold to the defendant and an agreement to that effect was entered between the parties on 17-12-1990. In pursuance of the said agreement, defendant paid Rs. 1,000/- and the balance of Rs. 4,000/- was yet to be paid. Subsequently, there was dispute between the parties and each party blamed the other for not fulfilling the said agreement. Clause 2 of the said agreement provided that in the event the purchaser failed to pay any instalment of the balance amount of the sale price in time, then the construction would be demolished forthwith without raising any dispute. It is in pursuance of this clause that the plaintiff filed suit for demolition in which the defendant made counter-claim seeking to enforce the said agreement. 11.The above facts would go to show that the controversy between the parties essentially related to and centered around the said agreement dated 17-12-1990. The parties had agreed that in case the purchaser, namely, the defendant, failed to pay the balance instalments, the construction would be demolished forthwith without raising any dispute. What the defendant seeks to achieve by amendment by adding para 2-A is to introduce defence of Mundkarship with reference to the said suit structure, even inspite of the fact that in Clause 2 of the agreement, he had agreed that in case of failure to pay the balance instalments, the plaintiff would be forthwith entitled to demolish the construction without raising any dispute. In the said amendment, the defendant wants to incorporate his plea that the suit structure is a Mundkarial dwelling house of the defendant and his mother along with their ancestors have been in occupation and possession of the same for last more than 30 years. There facts were within the knowledge of the defendant when he filed the written statement and there is no reasonable explanation or justification as to why the said facts were not initially incorporated in the plaint. A Single Judge of this Court in Shri Singh Vijay Shankar and others v. Mourya Ramsurat Rampyare and others, 1994(1) Mah.L.R. 236, has held that when facts leading to proposed amendment are within the knowledge of the petitioner since prior to the filing of the written statement, he cannot be allowed to add them by way of amendment. 12.At this stage, it is necessary to examine the justification given by the defendant for not incorporating those facts in the written statement itself. The defendant has given two reasons for the same, namely, inadvertence and that the written statement was filed hurriedly. The suit was fixed for filing written statement on 30th January, 1992 and the written statement in this case was filed on 5-3-1992, that is to say, after a gap of about one month and, as such, I cannot accept the justification given by the defendant that the written statement had been hurriedly filed. The second ground is a bare averment of inadvertence without any facts on the basis of which the said inadvertence is pleaded. Mere inadvertence without proper justification cannot be said to be a good ground for any purpose. A Division Bench ruling of this Court in (Cooverje Jethabhai Shah v. Amir Abdulali Kachwala and Company)12, A.I.R. 1963 Bom. 170, found that the plaintiff had not given any satisfactory reasons in his application for amendment and did not allow the amendment sought by the plaintiff. Therefore, the amendment application in question was liable to be rejected since the defendant had not given any satisfactory justification or explanation for not incorporating the facts sought to be introduced by amendment, in the written statement itself. 13.Thirdly, by seeking amendment, the defendant wants to enlarge the controversy between the parties by not only raising a new plea, but by taking a new defence. 13.Thirdly, by seeking amendment, the defendant wants to enlarge the controversy between the parties by not only raising a new plea, but by taking a new defence. The controversy which hitherto was limited and was centering around agreement dated 17-12-1990 is sought to be enlarged by taking the plea of Mundkarship. The erstwhile Court of Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu in Francisco Oliveira v. Piedade Almeida, A.I.R. 1970 Goa 93, did not permit the defendant to introduce an amendment to the written statement to add additional plea that he was an agricultural labourer as against the plea of Mundkarship which he had already taken in the written statement. It was held that such amendment would totally change the case of the defendant altogether. It is not a case which would merely open a different or additional approach to the facts already stated, but it is a case which changes the nature of defence and, in other words, sets up a new case which cannot be permitted by way of amendment. Similar observations were made by Punjab and Haryana High Court in (Mundanlal Verma v. Smt. Sushila Devi)13, A.I.R. 1972 P H 283. Which support the view I have taken in the matter. 14.There is another reason why the lower Court should not have granted this amendment and that is that the amendment is sought with mala fide intention to prolong the litigation by taking additional plea of mundkarship. 15.In the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court had totally overlooked settled principles of granting amendments and the impugned order is accordingly liable to be set aside insofar as amendment to para 2 by introducing plea of Mundkar is concerned. 16.Insofar as amendment raising preliminary objection is concerned, the same relates to plea of limitation and there is objection to allow the said amendment. 17.For the reasons mentioned above, revision is partly allowed. Amendment sought by the defendant by adding para 2-A introducing plea of Mundkarship is hereby disallowed and to that extent the lower Court's order is set aside. The amendment to include preliminary objection relating to limitation is allowed and the plaintiff be given liberty to file additional pleadings, if any, in respect of the said amendment. Rule made accordingly. In the facts and circumstances, I would leave the parties to bear their costs. Rule made accordingly. *****