Delhi High Court (April 26, 2002) 2002 (TLS)127685 2002-DRJ-64-792 TARA V. GANJU Vs. Basant and Company S. Mukerjee ( 1 ) A dispute regarding amendment of pleadings has consumed about five years time, and it is in this significant context that the matter in issued in this appeal needs to be examined in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts. ( 2 ) IT is well settled that the discretion to allow amendment of pleadings in a case which is still at the initial stages (inasmuch as even the arguments on the confirmation or otherwise of the injunction, have not yet been heard), is to be quite liberally exercised, except for those amendments which go to set up a totally new or different case, or which amount to an attempt to resile from admissions already made or amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. ( 3 ) THE Single Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 8. 9. 2000, has disallowed a large number of amendments as proposed by the appellant/plaintiff. During the hearing of this appeal, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted a list of proposed amendments in respect of which alone the appellant is now pressing for relief at the present appellate stage, thereby indicating that the other amendments, which though period for in the original amendment application, and though dealt with by the learned Single Judge, yet need not detain us while hearing and disposing of the present appeal. ( 4 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our considered view, the plaintiffs/appellants have only proposed to further elaborate and elucidate the stand which had been already taken in the unamended plaint to the effect that the sale of the property was invalid. In our view, once the plaintiffs have pleaded the absence of lawful authority on the part of the transferor and also alleged the circumstances such as notice of re-entry etc. , as otherwise also disabling the late pt. S. N. Ganju from eliminating the said property, it was therefore available in law for the said plaintiff s to not only elaborate and elucidate the same defence by giving further challenges and averments, but it was even permissible for the appellant/plaintiff to have adopted an additional/parallel challenge if so available in respect of the same relief. S. N. Ganju from eliminating the said property, it was therefore available in law for the said plaintiff s to not only elaborate and elucidate the same defence by giving further challenges and averments, but it was even permissible for the appellant/plaintiff to have adopted an additional/parallel challenge if so available in respect of the same relief. In fact, in our view the ratio of the various leading cases on the point of amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is well settled and in relation to the same final relief, it would be open to a party to adopt an additional and/or parallel approach also, so long as the proposed amendment and the earlier stand taken, are not self-destructive of each other. ( 5 ) AS regards the other points laid down in the Judgment, viz. that the amendment should not amount to a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which, since the institution of the suit, has become barred, the discretion would still cont inue to vest in the Court to allow or disallow the amendment, as also in those case where the opposite party would suffer an injury pursuant to the amendment, which cannot be compensated in costs. The ultimate test in the exercise of discretion being whether the amendment can be allowed without injustice to the other side, or would it necessarily entail such injustice as would warrant the disallowance. ( 6 ) LASTLY, the above quoted proposed amendment No. 16 seeks incorporation of the averment that the plaintiff No. 2 was a minor at the relevant time, and had been kept in the dark by the other family members and further that he (plaintiff No. 2) had been holding the belief that the property was owned by the family and that only occupancy was with the tenants of the HUF of late Pandit S. N. Ganju. An averment has also been made to the effect that plaintiff No. 2 came to know only in the month of June/july 1995, that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were claiming ownership rights in respect of the said property. ( 7 ) THE respondents seriously objected to this proposed amendment being allowed, on the ground that the amendment is nothing else but a strategy to overcome the bar of limitation by incorporating this relatively recent date of knowledge. 1 and 2 were claiming ownership rights in respect of the said property. ( 7 ) THE respondents seriously objected to this proposed amendment being allowed, on the ground that the amendment is nothing else but a strategy to overcome the bar of limitation by incorporating this relatively recent date of knowledge. Attractive though this objection may appear on the first view, however taking into account the fact that plaintiff No. 2 was a minor at earlier points of time and he was now making a categorical averment upon getting himself transposed as plaintiff No. 2, that he came to know/acquire the knowledge about the rights of defendants 1 and 2 only in June/july 1995, as such the amendment has to be allowed since we are not concerned at this stage with the merits of the contention or the correctness of the averment as contained in the proposed amendment. It does not set up a new case, and also does not cause any injustice which cannot be compensated in terms of cost, and as such the amendment has to be allowed. ( 8 ) IT may well be that after the amendment is allowed and the pleadings and evidence come on record, thereafter at the end of the trial, the defendants 1 and 2 may be able to establish that the contention is of plaintiff No. 1 is a false or concocted or meritless contention or not borne out by evidence adduced by him. However that cannot be ground to decline amendment in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and thereby allow plaintiff/appellants application (IA 3822/96) to the extent that the amendments at SI. No. 6 to 9 and 13 to 16 shall stand allowed subject to the appellant paying a cost in the sum of Rs. 5000/- to each of the contesting defendants. Amended plaint incorporating these amendments alongwith these amendments which had been permitted by learned Single judge, shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today before the learned single Judge. Costs will also be paid to the Defendants within four weeks. The parties will bear their respective costs, as regards the present appeal. The parties will appear before the learned Single Judge on 28. 5. 2002. --- *** --- .