Jaspal Singh ( 1 ) THE suit is for specific Performance of an agreement of Sale allegedly entered into by defendant No. 1. It had already been a witness to lot of fire work. What is, at present, at the center stage of the controversy is an application moved by defendant No. 1 for amendment of the written statement. ( 2 ) WHAT are the objections to the application ? They are tow. The first is that defendant No. 1 having made certain admission in the written statement is now trying wriggle out of the same. I am reminded by Mr. Tikku that law does not favour it. The second objection is that defendant No. 1 is seeking to incorporate new pleas. Mr. Tikku says this too is not permissible. ( 3 ) AND what is the admission made by defendant No. 1 which according to Mr. Tikku, is now being sought to be withdrawn? He says that though in paragraph 3 of the Preliminary objections in the written statement defendant No. 1 has admitted that an agreement of sale was entered into. It is now seeking to take the plea that there was no such agreement. ( 4 ) IT so ? ( 5 ) I am afraid in cannot agree with Mr Tikku. The application under order 6 Rule 17 itself would go to show that the only change sought with regard to the above mentioned paragraph is not with regard to its contents but only with regard to its serial number. . What defendant No. 1 is asking for is to get is renumbered as, Paragraph IV. However, Mr. Tikku submits that the admission is being sought to be withdrawn by getting introduced a new paragraph in the Preliminary objections. I feel tempted to reproduce that Paragraph. It runs as under:- "iii. The alleged receipt dated 28th October. 1993 does not constitute an agreements for transfer of immovable property. The said receipt does not constitute an agreement and as such is neither admissible nor permissible to be read in law. The document is liable to be impounded as it is neither stamped nor registered in accordance with the law. The suit based on this document, therefore, is hit by the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and the Indian Registration Act. " ( 6 ) THE question still remains. The document is liable to be impounded as it is neither stamped nor registered in accordance with the law. The suit based on this document, therefore, is hit by the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and the Indian Registration Act. " ( 6 ) THE question still remains. Would the introduction of this paragraph amount to withdrawal of any admission made in paragraph 3 of the Preliminary Objections of the original written statement ? I repeat by way of reminder that Paragraph 3 remains intact. It is not even sought to be bruised. What is sought to be introduced through the above quoted paragraph is that the document which constituted the agreement is neither admissible nor permissible to be read in law and that the same is liable to be impounded as it is neither stamped nor registered in accordance w ith law. Surely it does not deny what stands admitted in the original written statement. It merely raises certain legal objections with regard to the admissibility of the document. That the existence of the agreement still stands admitted would be further borns out eve fro the amendments sought. In this respect reference may be made to Paragraph V which admits the presence of the agreement. It even speaks of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. In the same paragraph the agreement is against referred to by saying. " The properties which at the time of the agreement were in the range of " ( 7 ) CAN it, under the circumstances, be said that the admission with regard to the agreement is being sought to be withdrawn ? I have already answered the question and I reiterate the same. ( 8 ) COMING to the second objection, undoubtable the defendant No. 1 is seeking to incorporate certain new pleas. Those pleas relate not only to the conduct of the plaintiffs but also to certain allegations which according to defendant No. 1 would disentitle the plaintiffs from getting the reliefs sought for by them. ( 8 ) COMING to the second objection, undoubtable the defendant No. 1 is seeking to incorporate certain new pleas. Those pleas relate not only to the conduct of the plaintiffs but also to certain allegations which according to defendant No. 1 would disentitle the plaintiffs from getting the reliefs sought for by them. And, what is it, precisely, which is now sought to be pleaded, it is said that time was the essence of the contract and the plaintiffs failed to adhee to the time schedule, that it was kind of back to back agreement for the defendant and the plaintiff was aware of it and of the necessity of one-time Payment, and that the plaintiffs furstreted the agreement by committing breach of its terms and are now pursuing the suit only because of increase in market price of the property. True these are new pleas. But them, I am not aware of any impediment or bar against the court permitting amendment of pleadings so as to enable a party to raise a new plea. What is required to be observed in delay in making the application seeking such amendment and similar other well-known principles. Significantly. the basis Material already there in the original written statement it is not a case where substitution is sought in note of one written statement for another already field No structural change is being sought and lest we forget, it may be emphaseised that the power of amendment is granted to the court in the larger interest of doing full justice to he parties and not to punish a party the ground that earlier it was not. to vigilant or diligent. The learned counsel for defendant No. 1 to my mind, thus rightly laid emphasis on the fact that what is sought to be amended is not a plaint but the written statement and that in the matter of an application seeking amendment of written statement the consideration would slightly different from those which weigh with the courts while dealing with amendment applications relating to plaints. The submission finds support from Chander Prakash Vs Om Prakash. AIR 1986 Delhi 1 16 ( 9 ) THE amendments sought are not frivolous. Rather they do raise plausible pleas. In any case. The submission finds support from Chander Prakash Vs Om Prakash. AIR 1986 Delhi 1 16 ( 9 ) THE amendments sought are not frivolous. Rather they do raise plausible pleas. In any case. I do feel that no such prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs by allowing the amendments which cannot be compensated by way of costs. Consequently. I allow the application on conditional Payment of Rs. 7000. 00 as costs. For payment of costs, put up on 27th November. 1995. ( 10 ) AT this stage. Mr. Tikku feels that whatever I have said in the order may be taken as reflection on the merits of the case. Surely, this is neither intended nor shall it be taken to be so. ( 11 ) ONE thing more before I drop the curtain. In answer to the amendment, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to take all the pleas which may be open to them in accordance with law. I am mentioning this as Mr. Tikku appeared to be a little apprehensive about the legal rights of the plaintiffs.