S. K. MAHAJAN ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. The brief facts giving rise to this application are : that plaintiff has filed this. suit for a permanent injunction on the allegations that the property being No. A-15/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was originally owned by Shri A. C Sikand, father of plaintiff No. 2 and 3 and defendant No. l and husband of plaintiff No. l; that on 31st January, 1976 defendant No. l got a gift deed executed from Shri A. C. Sikand on misrepresentation whereby the property was transferred in the name of defendant No. 1; that the parties to the suit had always treated the property to be a joint family property with the plaintiffs and defendant No. l each having one-fourth share therein and that defendant No. 1 was holding the property in a fiduciary capacity and did not have any absolute right therein. It is also alleged that defendant No. 1 did not at any time deny the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the said property and when in 1986 roof rights of the property were sold to defendants 2 and 3 by defendant No. 1, the same was done on a representation having been made by defendant No 1 that the amount so received will be invested in a business in which plaintiff No. 3 would also be involved and have an equal share. It is alleged that the intentions of defendant No. 1 had become dishonest and he, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs, entered into an agreement to sell the ground floor of the house to defendants 2 and 3 which was only by way of a distress sale. Defendant No -. 1 issued legal notices dated 31st December, 1994 and 21st January, 1995 calling upon plaintiff No. 3 to vacate the house and it is alleged that it was the first time that defendant No. l had denied the right and interest of the plaintiffs in the house and had claimed the house as his absolute property. Defendant No -. 1 issued legal notices dated 31st December, 1994 and 21st January, 1995 calling upon plaintiff No. 3 to vacate the house and it is alleged that it was the first time that defendant No. l had denied the right and interest of the plaintiffs in the house and had claimed the house as his absolute property. It was on these allegations that the plaintiffs filed the present suit for an injunction for restraining the defendants from in any manner dispossessing them and from in any manner interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the ground floor of the house by the plaintiffs. Certain other reliefs have also been claimed in the suit. Arguments on other applications of the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code and Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code were heard and the suit was reserved for orders, when the plaintiffs moved this application for amendment of the plaint. ( 2 ) BY the proposed amendment plaintiffs now want to add paragraph 17 A after the existing paragraph 17 to the effect that plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that the alleged gift is a sham transaction and was obtained by defendant No. 1 by misrepresentation and by exercising undue influence and that the plaintiffs were also entitled to certain reliefs which were direct result of the proposed amendments*. The application is being opposed by the defendants mainly on the ground that the amendment would change the character of the suit as a result of which the lis will assume a complexion, wholly beyond the realm of the cause of action. It is alleged in the reply that plea of the plaintiffs that the gift deed was a sham transaction was wholly false and was an afterthought and that the plaintiffs were estopped from claiming themselves to be the co-owners. It was, therefore, stated that the application should be dismissed as the same amounted to substituting a cause of action by another one. ( 3 ) RULE 17 of Order 6 Civil Procedure Code gives power to the Courts to allow amendments when the justice of the case requires the same. It was, therefore, stated that the application should be dismissed as the same amounted to substituting a cause of action by another one. ( 3 ) RULE 17 of Order 6 Civil Procedure Code gives power to the Courts to allow amendments when the justice of the case requires the same. The object of Rule 17 of Order 6 Civil Procedure Code is that the Courts should get and try the merits ofthe case that comes before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties without causing injustice to the other side. The general rule is that all amendments are to be allowed which do not purport to set up new case and which would not cause injustice to other side and which will be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties; It is also established principle that object ofthe Courts is to decide rights ofthe parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights. An application for amendment which is not mala fide should be allowed and the same is also allowed with a viewto avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. The rules confer a very wide discretion on the Courts in the matter of amendments and these powers are to be liberally exercised. While considering whether an amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court ought not to go into the merits ofthe amendments or to go into the alleged falsity ofthe case in the amendment. An admission, however, made in the suit cannot be allowed to be withdrawn unless cogent explanation has been given for the same. It is in this background that I have to consider the present application of the plaintiff. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff has in paragraph 8 of the plaint stated that taking advantage of the circumstances mentioned in other paragraphs of the plaint, defendant No. 1 represented to the deceased father of plaintiff No-3 and defendant No. 1 that he could raise loans from his employer and friends provided the land was transferred in his name and his employers would not advance the loan unless the same stood transferred in his name. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 represented to the deceased that since he was the eldest in the family after the deceased, it was his legal and moral duty to look after the plaintiff s who were totally dependent on the deceased at that time and it was believing this representation of defendant No. 1 that the deceased agreed to transfer the property in favour of defendant No. 1 by way of a gift deed on 31st January, 1976. It is also the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that defendant No. 1 had all along represented that he and the plaintiffs. each had one-fourth share in the property and he had not at any time denied the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the suit property till he gave notices dated 31 st December, 1994 and 21st January, 1995. ( 5 ) THE question as to whether this plea which has been taken in the plaint is correct or not cannot be considered at this stage but die fact remains, a plea has been taken in the plaint that the gift deed was got executed by defendant No. 1 by making misrepresentation. All that the plaintiff now wants is to amend the plaint so as to seek a relief of declaration declaring this gift deed to be a sham document and was intended to confer no right in defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiffs are co-owners in equal shares of the property. In my opinion, the nature and character of the suit will not be altered in case the proposed amendment is allowed. The plaintiffs are seeking relief on the basis of a plea which has already been taken in the plaint. A relief which is sought on a set of facts which have already I been alleged in the plaint will not change the character of the suit and in" my opinion, need not be disallowed. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Lekhi, appearing on behalf of the defendants, on the judgments reported as R. C. Gupta Vs. O. P. Gupta, etc. , 1984 RLR 267 Shakila Begum Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi, 1988 (1) Delhi Lawyer 461; Murii Dhar Dalmia Vs. Union of India, Etc. , ILR 1976 (2) Delhi 311 Kanailal Das and Another Vs. Jiban Kanani Das and Another, AIR 1977 Calcutta 189 and Madanagopal Vs. O. P. Gupta, etc. , 1984 RLR 267 Shakila Begum Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi, 1988 (1) Delhi Lawyer 461; Murii Dhar Dalmia Vs. Union of India, Etc. , ILR 1976 (2) Delhi 311 Kanailal Das and Another Vs. Jiban Kanani Das and Another, AIR 1977 Calcutta 189 and Madanagopal Vs. P. K. A. Ramachandra Mudaliar (Dead) By LRs and Others, 1995 (3) Scale 59 , in support of his contention that amendment should not be allowed as the same not only being contrary to the plea already taken in the plaint but would also amount to change the nature of cause and action and, setting up of a new case. I feel, none of the judgments would be of any help to the defendant as in my opinion, by the proposed amendment neither the cause of action is being changed nor the character of the suit is being altered by the plaintiffs. I also feel that the proposed amendments are necessary and relevant for deciding the matters in controversy between the parties. Suit is at its intitial stages and even the issues have not yet been framed. In my opinion, no prejudice will be caused to the defendants in case,the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint. ( 6 ) I, therefore, allow this application, subject to payment of Rs. 2,000. 00 as costs.