JUDGMENT P.C. Verma, J. 1. Heard Sri S. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.7.2001 passed by appellate court, rejecting the application paper No. 340-Ga moved in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1999 for amendment of the written statement. The order of rejecting the application for amendment has been passed on the ground that it will change the nature of case and will entail a fresh trial in the proceedings.Therefore, the amendment was not permissible. 3. 1 have examined the written statement filed by the petitioner as well as the amendment sought in the written statement. The order of rejecting the application for amendment has been passed on the ground that it will change the nature of case and will entail a fresh trial in the proceedings.Therefore, the amendment was not permissible. 3. 1 have examined the written statement filed by the petitioner as well as the amendment sought in the written statement. Para 14 of the written statement reads as under : g fd oknhx.k dk ;g dFku fd mUgksaus Hkwfe[k.M [k0 u0 596 dks fd;k gS drbZ xyr gS D;ksafd fookfnr Hkwfe 50 o"kksZa ls Hkh vf/kd le; ls vkcknh ds :i esa bLrseky gks jgh gS] rFkk fookfnr Hkwfe ds vklikl dksbZ Hkh Hkwfe [kkyh ugha gS izfroknh ds Hkwfe ls iwjc dh vksj jksVjh xkS'kkyk /keZ'kkyk dk iq[rk fuekZ.k pyk vkrk gS rFkk mj o if'pe dh vksj lM+d pyh vkrh gSA nf{k.k esa iq[rk fuek.kZ vk;Z baVj dkyst tks xq:dqy dkaxM+h dh laLFkk gS] bl izdkj fookfnr Hkwfe ds vklikl dksbZ [kkyh Hkwfe ugha gSA tcfd oknhx.k [kkyh IykV ds 10 cSukesa n'kkZrs gS vk;Z izfrfuf/k lHkk iatkc }kjk fookfnr Hkwfe dks fo djus dk dksbZ dkuquh vf/kdkj ugha gS D;ksafd fookfnr laifr ds vykok vU; laif;ksa] ftlesa gfjjke vk;Z baVj dkyst dk M+k LFky o Ldwy fLFkr gS dsoy lkekftd dY;k.k gsrq bLrseky esa pyh vkrh jgh gSA by lcds ckotwn Hkh oknhx.k }kjk QthZ :i ls vius utnhdh fj'rsnkj dks QthZ eq[rkjukes ds vk/kkj ij QthZ lkt'kh] dfFkr 'kwU; izi= cSukeksa ds vk/kkj ij oknhx.k dks fookfnr Hkwfe ij dksbZ vf/kdkj gkfly ugha gksrk gSA** and Para 14A which has been sought to be added in written statement reads as under: ^^;g fd vk;Z izfrfuf/k lHkk iatkc dk fnukad 14-9-1975 dks foHkktu gks x;k Fkk rFkk iatkc] gfj;k.kk] fnYyh rFkk fgekpy izns'k pkjksa dh vyx&vyx izfrfuf/k lHkk,a cuk nh x;h Fkh rFkk bu pkjksa jkT;ks dh izfrfuf/k lHkkvksa ds {ks=ksa dh lhek,a ogha jgsxh tks bu pkjksa jkT;ksa dh jktdh; lhek,a Fkh bl izdkj vk;Z izfrfuf/k lHkk iatkc dks iatkc ls ckgj dh lEif ds laca/k esa 1975 ds ckn rUgk :i ls dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha jg x;s Fks vkSj u gh vk;Z izfrfuf/k lHkk iatkc dk iz'uxr lEifr ;k iatkc dh lhek ds ckgj dh lEif ij dksbZ dCtk FkkA blfy, vk;Z izfrfuf/k lHkk iatkc ds dfFkr ea=h Jh v'ouh dqekj dks iz'kuxr lEif cspus ds fy, vf/k ugha fd;k x;k vkSj u gh fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] mDr izLrko QthZ gSA blfy, oknhx.k dks dfFkr cSukesa ds vk/kkj ij dCtk fn, tkus dk dksbZ iz'u mRiUu ugha gksrk u gh oknhx.k dks dfFkr cSukesa ds vk/kkj ij iz'uxr lEif dh ckcr dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr gq, vkSj u gh izkIr gks ldrs Fks] pwafd dfFkr cSukesa xyr fcyk vf/kdkj o voS/kkfud rjhds ls vl{ke O;fDr;ks ds }kjk fd;s gSaA ftuds vk/kkj ij dksbZ vf/kdkj oknhx.k dks izkIr ugha gq;sA** 4. A perusal of both paras makes it explicit that the amendment sought is explanatory in nature. They have been explained in Para 11A what was stated in Para 14 in the written statement. Therefore, the amendment sought to be made cannot be said to contain new facts which will alter the defence of the petitioner. This amendment may be allowed. Rest of the part of the impugned order does not warrant any interference. The order of the trial court dated 12.7.2001 is set aside to this extent and rest order of the trial court is upheld. 5. As part of the order, by which this petition of amendment has been rejected is set aside, the writ petition is allowed partly accordingly. No order as to costs.