Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. The plaintiff in O.S.636 of 1997 challenges the order passed by the Munsiff s Court, Kannur in LA. No. 3572 of 1998 filed in the above case whereby the request for amendment made by him was turned down. 2. In the plaint, the revision petitioner alleged that he is in possession of one shop and its premises where he is running an automobile workshop; that the respondent herein had leased it out to him in the year 1972 with a liability to pay rent of Rs. 100/- per. mensum; that subsequently, the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per mensum; and that the respondent was trying to create difficulties to the plaintiff for the continuance in the premises a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining him from closing the gate of the premises was necessary. 3. In the counter filed to the plaintiffs injunction application, the respondent pointed out that the suit is filed with false averments; that there was no question of granting any lease to the plaintiff as alleged in 1972 since the defendant even got title to the property only in the year 1977; that the request for amendment was devoid of any bonafides and that the contentions of the petitioner are also devoid of any bona fides. It is in this background that the petitioner came forward with the request for amendment of the plaint introducing a case that the lease was in 1977. The survey number given in the plaint was also incorrect and hence there was also a prayer for amending the schedule. 4. The application for amendment was resisted on the ground that it is introducing. a new cause of action and also that it would deprive the defendant of his right to expose the plaintiffs case. 5. The Court below accepted the respondent's contention and dismissed the petition with cost of Rs. 200/ 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision reported in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Mojl Rarn (AIR 1973 SC 484) and contended that the rejection of the application for amendment was unjustified. According to him, the plaintiff always has a right to amend the plaint taking into account the contentions raised by the defence as well. 7. Here is a case where what is alleged was an oral lease of 1972. v. Mojl Rarn (AIR 1973 SC 484) and contended that the rejection of the application for amendment was unjustified. According to him, the plaintiff always has a right to amend the plaint taking into account the contentions raised by the defence as well. 7. Here is a case where what is alleged was an oral lease of 1972. It is when the defendant pointed out the falsity of the case in so far as he even got the right to the property only in 1977 and got absolute possession only in the year 198 3 when his brother who was the co-owner released his rights in his favour, that the plaintiff thought of amending the plaint introducing the case that the oral lease was in 1977 ie., soon after the defendant got title to the property. The schedule property is a bunk and the yard in its front which is being used for keeping the vehicles seized by the financiers in consequence of the default in payment of hire purchase installments. It is the defence case that the defendant has been using the premises for the above purpose and that there was no oral lease at all. 8. It is very pertinent that the plaintiff has no document at all to show that he had possession of the premises at any time between 1972 and 1983, Even the documents like tax receipts produced by the plaintiff pertain only to the period after 1983. It is in this background that the Court below weighed the case of the plaintiff and found that it was devoid of good faith. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent took me through the plaint filed in the case where, in para 6, the averment that the lease was of 1972 was repeated. There is no motion made now for amending that para of the plaint and hence even if the present application is allowed and para 2 amended altering the date of lease to 1977, there will be a factually contradictory version in para 6 that the lease alleged continued to be one of 1972. 10. In the decision in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram (AIR 1973 SC 484) it was laid down that the procedure of law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice, and that pro visions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant. 10. In the decision in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram (AIR 1973 SC 484) it was laid down that the procedure of law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice, and that pro visions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant. to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between parries and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take. That was a case where a suit for recovery of money due under a promissory note was filed by a firm through a partner and the amendment sought for was on the ground that the partnership firm already stood dissolved on the date of filing of the suit and that the suit is instituted by one of the partners of a dissolved firm. It was found by the Supreme Court that if a plaintiff seeks to alter the cause of action itself and tries to introduce indirectly, through an amendment of his pleadings, an entirely new or in consistent cause of action, amounting virtually to the substitution of a new plaint or a new cause of action in place of what was originally there, the Court will refuse to permit it if it amounts to depriving the party against which a suit is pending of any right which may have accrued in its favour due to lapse of time. But mere failure to set out even an essential fact does not, by itself, constitute a new cause of action. Even very defective pleadings may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided, necessary conditions, such as payment of additional court fees, which may be payable etc. are complied with. It was also provided that it is only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of action that the Courts should, ordinarily, refuse prayers for amendment of pleadings. 11. In the instant case, what is sought to be introduced through the amendment is a totally different case vis-a-vis that raised in the original plaint. It was also provided that it is only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of action that the Courts should, ordinarily, refuse prayers for amendment of pleadings. 11. In the instant case, what is sought to be introduced through the amendment is a totally different case vis-a-vis that raised in the original plaint. It was the defendant who pointed out that there was no oral lease of 1972 and that even the defendant got title only in 1977 and it was thereupon that the defendant wanted to change the position and to take up a contention that the oral lease was in 1977. In fact, it was only in 1983 that the defendant got absolute right which would have enabled him to make any oral lease at all. The impact of the amendment sought is, therefore, to effect a total change in the pleading and to deprive the defendant of a valid contention that the lease set up is absolutely false. 12. The question whether such a complete change can be introduced through an amendment was considered by the Supreme Court itself in M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co. (AIR 1977 SC 680). That was also a case where after taking a contention in the written statement that the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff was not applicable to the transaction in which the plaintiff was acting as a principal, and after alleging alternatively that if the agreement was applied to the dealings the plaintiff s position was merely that of an agent of the defendant and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages from the defendants, that the amendment was sought for, for deletion of the aforesaid contentions and to introduce a new case that the plaintiff was appointed as a mercantile agent and that he had acted only in that capacity on behalf of the defendant. The Supreme Court found that the defendants were trying to introduce an entirely different case and that if such amendment was permitted, it would prejudice the other side. It was also observed that the defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the statement pleaded in the written statement and to substitute it with an entirely different and new case. The Supreme Court found that the defendants were trying to introduce an entirely different case and that if such amendment was permitted, it would prejudice the other side. It was also observed that the defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the statement pleaded in the written statement and to substitute it with an entirely different and new case. The Supreme Court also found that though inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings, it cannot be done in such a way as to displace the other side completely from the admissions originally made in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed. it was held, the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied an opportunity of extracting an admission from the defendants and in the circumstances, the amendment was inadmissible. 13. Chhotubhai Babarbhai Patel & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (AIR 1972 Guj .152) considered the question whether an amendment can be allowed in such a way that the other party would be put to an irreparableloss in consequence of the amendment. The question was answered in the negative. 14. Banta Singh Ganga Singh & Ors. v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur & Ors. (AIR 1974 P. & H. 247) went into the question whether an amendment could be allowed if its effect is to take away a valuable right which was accrued to the opposite party by lapse of time. There also, the answer was in the negative. 15. The principles governing amendments can therefore be summarised as follows. The parties have power to seek amendment of the pleadings and this will be considered tibenlly. The plaintiff is the master of the suit and it is for him to shape its case. Amendments will not be denied even if there is some delay in moving therefor. No party can be refused a just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court will always give leave to amend the pleadings unless it is satisfied that the party applying therefor was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he has caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. The Court will always give leave to amend the pleadings unless it is satisfied that the party applying therefor was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he has caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless the party may have been, and however late the proposed amendment was sought for, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made with out injustice to the other side. Every case depends upon its own facts in such matters. However, no amendment will be allowed if its effect is to take away a valuable right that has accrued to the opposite party by lapse of time. Applications for amendments made with malafides will not be favourably considered. All amendments will be allowed, if they satisfy the test of not working out injustice to the other side and if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Where the amendment introduces a new case which is totally different from the one pleaded and where the consequences of such amendment would be to deprive the other side of the benefit of the admissions and where such opposite side will be irretrievably prejudiced, the amendment sought for will not be allowed. 16. In the instant case, the consequence of allowing the amendment will be to deprive the defendant of the benefits arising from the admission in the plaint that the oral lease claimed was of the year 1972. The contention also appears to be without good faith in so far as the amendment motion emerged soon after the defendant made it clear that as on the date of the alleged lease, the defendant did not even get the title to the property. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the Court below was right in denying the motion for amendment of the plaint. The revision is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed.