ORDER The Civil Revision Petition was admitted on 19-4-2008 and in C.R.P.M.P.No.2166/2008 interim stay had been granted. 2. The unsuccessful petitioner-defendant in I.A.No.1163/2007 in O.S.No.2050/2006 aggrieved by the order made by the II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dt.13-3-2008, dismissing the application filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience), had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Sri Murlinarayan Bung, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner would maintain that the view expressed by the learned II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, that the effect of allowing the proposed amendment would amount to withdrawal of the admissions cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the written statement always alternative pleas and even inconsistent pleas can be taken, when that being so, on the ground that allowing amendment of written statement would have the effect of the withdrawal of the admissions cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, there is no withdrawal of admissions as such and in fact, clarificatory stand had been further explained by virtue of the proposed paras which were sought to be introduced by way of amendment in the written statement. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the order impugned in the C.R.P. and further placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 4. On the contrary, Smt. Mammu Vani, the learned Counsel representing Sri S. Malla Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondent would maintain that as can be seen from the paras which are sought to be introduced by way of amendment in the written statement, the two important admissions are being withdrawn and the learned Counsel pointed out the specific pleas taken in the original written statement and also the relevant portions of the paras sought to be introduced by way of amendment. While further elaborating her submissions, the learned Counsel also pointed out that it is not as though this amendment of written statement had been thought of at the earliest point of time, at any rate, before the commencement of trial and when an application of this nature had been moved, after the commencement of trial, unless the conditions specified in the proviso are satisfied, such application cannot be allowed. The Counsel also would maintain that convincing reasons had been recorded by the learned II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, while dismissing the application and at any rate, if the proposed pleas sought to be raised by way of amendment to be allowed, it will have the effect of certain complications, like even the question of non-impleading of some parties. Hence, in this view of the matter, if amendment to be allowed not only it will amount to withdrawal of the admissions already made it would further create further complications and also would cause serious prejudice to the respondent. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions. 5. Heard the Counsel. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner- defendant in I.A.No.1163/2007 in O.S.No.2050/2006 on the file of II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code wherein the petitioner-defendant prayed for amendment of written statement to permit the petitioner to carry out the amendment to add para 5(a) after para No.5 and para 6(a) after para No.6 in the written statement. The said paras sought to be introduced by way of amendment of the written statement are as hereunder:- "5(a). It is submitted that the allegation that there was a leave or license is not correct, but in fact it was obtained on long lease. It is submitted that the premises was obtained originally on lease by a Company known as "India File Information Technology Limited.," of which the defendant was Director and wife of the defendant was also one of the Director. It is submitted that the deposit for granting of lease amounting to Rs.51,000/- was paid by the said Company only. It is submitted that lease was obtained by the said Company for the residence of some Directors or their officials. It is submitted that the deposit for granting of lease amounting to Rs.51,000/- was paid by the said Company only. It is submitted that lease was obtained by the said Company for the residence of some Directors or their officials. It is further submitted that the said flat as allotted by the Company to the defendant and wife of the defendant who were the director of the said Company. It is submitted that and as such, the change of the lease in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff was illegal, improper and the plaintiff got executed an agreement of lease by the defendant for nominal purpose i.e., for the purpose of only to avoid the deduction of TDS for the reason that the plaintiff is not having income tax file and as such, the suit filed against the defendant is not maintainable and company "India File Information Technology Ltd" is a necessary and proper party to the suit. It is further submitted that as the defendant was also one of director and any act done by the defendant unilaterally without passing resolution by the Company is not binding on the Company and only at the assurance of the plaintiff that the lease deed is executed formally to avoid the deduction of TDS and to avoid the showing the amounts in the income tax. It is submitted that though the a formal lease deed was got executed in the name of the defendant, but deposit still remain with the plaintiff in the name of the Company namely India File Information Technology Ltd., and as such the suit is not maintainable on this ground. 6(a). It is submitted that even after expiry of the period of notice rents were being received by the plaintiff without protest and as such, the plaintiff abandoned the right under the notice and the notice have become infructuous and as such, there cannot be said to be a valid and proper termination of notice and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for possession. Without prejudice to the right of the defendant, it is submitted that the notice dt.14-8-2006 is not valid, proper and same is not in compliance of provision of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act." 7. Without prejudice to the right of the defendant, it is submitted that the notice dt.14-8-2006 is not valid, proper and same is not in compliance of provision of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act." 7. It may be appropriate to have a glance at the relevant portions of the written statement for the purpose of better appreciation of the contentions advanced by the Counsel on record. Para 2 of the written statement reads as hereunder:- "In reply to what is stated in para-3 of the plaint the defendant submits that it is true that the defendant and other family has obtained Flat No.2 on VI Floor, of Bandar Residency comprising of 3 Bed rooms, Dining room, Kitche, Pooja room, Portico admeasuring 1900 sqft and 600 sqft only roof slab and without walls including common area and 100 sqft open terrace with Car Parking lot No.37 in stilt in premises bearing H.No.6-3-1216, 1217 and 1218 in Plot No.140 and 141 situated at Uma Nagar, Begampet, Hyderabad on rent from plaintiff under leave and licence agreement dated 1-2-2005 for period of 11 months w.e.f.1-12-2005 on the monthly rent of Rs.12,127/- (Twelve Thousand One Hundred and twenty seven only) and Rs.8,492/- (Eight Thousand Four Hundred and ninety two only) towards rent for using fixtures and fittings. The defendant further submit that they are in possession of the suit schedule property from 29-12-2003 as lessees along with his family members by entering into a leave and licence agreement between the plaintiff and M/s. India File Information Technology Ltd. rep.by its Director Mrs. B. D. Agarwal, W/o. Ram Agarwal who is no other than the wife of defendant in the above suit. It is further submitted that as per the leave and licence agreement dated 28-12-2003 the suit schedule property was letout on a monthly rent of Rs.10,500/- (Ten Thousand Five Hundred only) towards monthly rent and Rs.7,362/- (Seven Thousand Three Hundred and sixty two only) for using the fixtures and fitting and the said lease is for a period of 11 months. It is further submitted that as per clause-2 of leave and licence agreement there will be an increase of 5% rent every year at the time of renewal of lease agreement. It is further submitted that as per clause-2 of leave and licence agreement there will be an increase of 5% rent every year at the time of renewal of lease agreement. It is submitted that Mrs.B.D.Agarwal, W/o.Ram Agarwal deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) as a refundable security deposit and Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand only) under the amenities charges agreement dated 28-12-2003." Likewise, emphasis had been laid even on the averments of para 4 and the said averments made in para 4 read as hereunder:- "It is further submitted that again on 1-12-2005 the plaintiff requested the defendant to change the name of lessee from Company to individual as he is having some tax problems and as such the husband of Mrs. B. D. Agarwal i.e., the defendant herein entered into a fresh lease agreement with the plaintiff with 10% increase in monthly rent and amenities charges it is further submitted that there is an oral understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant that the lease period will be for a period of three years, though the period in the lease agreement was mentioned as 11 months only. It is further submitted that the defendant is paying the monthly rent till today without fair and the plaintiff is collecting the rent from the defendant even after filing the above suit, which act of the plaintiff clearly indicates that the lease period is renewed for a period of another two years as orally agreed upon by the plaintiff and the defendant." It is stated by the Revision Petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A.No.1163/2007 in O.S.No.2050/2006 that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for possession and mesne profits and the petitioner had filed written statement on 12-6-2006 and due to oversight and mistake of the then Advocate, certain pleas could not be taken and some of them are legal and some of them are factual and the petitioner could not notice the same while signing the written statement because he is a layman in law. It was further stated that such amendment in the written statement is necessary to be carried out and if the amendment is not permitted in the written statement by adding the above stated paragraphs, the petitioner will be put to serious loss. 8. It was further stated that such amendment in the written statement is necessary to be carried out and if the amendment is not permitted in the written statement by adding the above stated paragraphs, the petitioner will be put to serious loss. 8. A counter affidavit in detail had been filed by the respondent-plaintiff wherein specific stand had been taken that the stand taken by the petitioner that by oversight and mistake, the Advocate could not take certain pleas, cannot be a sustainable stand. Further it is specifically averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner-defendant had admitted that he has obtained the premises on rent from the plaintiff under Leave and Licence Agreement dt.1-12-2005 for a period of 11 months. That being the case, through the proposed amendment, the defendant is trying to withdraw the admission made by him in the written statement about taking the property on lease, by introducing different and new case. Further it is averred that the suit for eviction and mesne profits had been filed on 13-11-2006 and the defendant entered his appearance on 26-12-2006 and thereafter the defendant took nearly six months time for filing written statement. Ultimately, when the defendant failed to file the written statement inspite of granting the time, his right to file the written statement was forfeited and the matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence. Then the petitioner came up with an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code on 12-6-2007 along with written statement. The said application was allowed on 12-6-2007 and the written statement was received. Thereafter, the matter was posted to 16-6-2007 on which date the issues were framed and suit was adjourned for trial to 7-8-2007. It is also stated that the respondent filed his affidavit of Chief-Examination on 7-8-2007 and subsequent thereto, the Counsel representing defendant sought for time and by virtue of this amendment the petitioner- defendant seeks to introduce a totally new and inconsistent case which is not permissible in Law and further the petitioner-defendant failed to show that despite exercise of due diligence, these pleas could not have been raised before the commencement of trial. Hence, viewed from any angle, the application to be dismissed. 9. Hence, viewed from any angle, the application to be dismissed. 9. The learned II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at para 4 formulated the following points for consideration:- 1) Whether the petitioner/defendant has shown a sufficient cause to amend the written statement after commencement of the trial in the main suit? 2) To what relief? The learned Judge recorded reasons at paras 6, 7, 8 and 9 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the application deserves a dismissal and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred. 10. The relevant portions of the written statement and also the relevant portions of both para 5(a) and para 6(a) sought to be introduced by way of amendment already had been specified supra. The reasons which had been highlighted by Smt. Mammu Vani relating to withdrawal of the admissions are to the effect that having taken a stand of 11 months lease, the same had been withdrawn and even as in relation to the lease transaction, a new case is sought to be introduced by way proposed amendment. It is needless to say that the relevant portions of the written statement and also the relevant paras of the proposed amendment being self-explanatory, the contents thereof need not be repeated in elaboration. However, Sri Murlinarayan Bung, the learned Counsel representing Revision Petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in MANOHAR LAL v. N.B.M.SUPPLY, GUNGAON, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , wherein, no doubt, the Apex Court at paras 5, 6 and 7 observed as hereunder:- "The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensed for by an order of costs. However, negligence or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. However, negligence or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. In Amulakchand Mewaram v. Babulal Kanalal, 35 Bom LR 569 = (AIR 1933 Bom.304), Be amount, C.J., in delivering the Judgment of the Bombay High Court set out the principles applicable to cases like the present and observed: "............ the question whether there should be an amendment or not really turns upon whether the name in which the suit is brought is the name of a non-existent person or whether it is merely a misdescription of existing persons. If the former is the case, the suit is a nullity and no amendment can cure it. If the latter is the case, prima facie, there ought to be an amendment because the general rules, subject no doubt to certain exceptions, is that the Court should always allow an amendment where any loss to the opposing party can be compensated for by costs." In Amulakchand Mewaram's case, 35 Bom LR 569 = (AIR 1933 Bom.304) a Hindu undivided family sued in its business name. It was not appreciated at an early stage of the suit that in fact the firm name was not of a partnership, but was the name of a joint Hindu family. An objection was raised by the defendant that the suit as failed was not maintainable. An application to amend the plaint, by substituting the names of the three members of the joint family for the name of the family firm as plaintiffs, was rejected by the Court of first instance. In appeal the High Court observed that a suit brought in the name of a firm in a case not within Order 30, Code of Civil Procedure being in fact a case of mis-description of existing persons, leave to amend ought to have been given. The Court considered a somewhat similar case in Purushottam Umedbhai's case (1961-1 SCR 982 = (AIR 1961 S.C., 325). A firm carrying on business outside India filed a suit in the firm name in the High Court of Calcutta for a decree for compensation for breach of contract. The plaintiff then applied for amendment of the plaint by describing the names of the firm as a mere mis-description. A firm carrying on business outside India filed a suit in the firm name in the High Court of Calcutta for a decree for compensation for breach of contract. The plaintiff then applied for amendment of the plaint by describing the names of the firm as a mere mis-description. The application for amendment was rejected on the view that the original plaint was no plaint in law and it was not a case of misnomer or mis-description, but a case of a non-existent firm or a non-existent person suing. In appeal, the High Court held that the description of the plaintiff by a firm in a case where the Code of Civil Procedure did not permit a suit to be brought in the firm name should properly be considered a case of description of the individual partners of the business and as such a mis-description, which in law can be corrected and should not be considered to amount to a description of a non-existent person. Against the order of the High Court an appeal was preferred to this Court. This Court observed (at p.994): "Since, however, a firm is not a legal entity the privilege of suing in the name of a firm is permissible only to those persons who, as partners, are doing business in India. Such privilege is not extended to persons who are doing business as partners outside India. In their case they still have to sue in their individual names. If however, under some misapprehension, persons doing business as partners outside India do file a plaint in the name of their firm they are mis-describing themselves, as the suit instituted is by them, they being known collectively as a firm. It seems, therefore, that a plaint filed in a Court in India in the name of a firm doing business outside India is not by itself a nullity. It is a plaint by all the partners of the firm with a defective description of themselves for the purpose of the Code of Civil Procedure. It seems, therefore, that a plaint filed in a Court in India in the name of a firm doing business outside India is not by itself a nullity. It is a plaint by all the partners of the firm with a defective description of themselves for the purpose of the Code of Civil Procedure. In these circumstances, a Civil Court could permit, under the provisions of Section 153 of the Code (Or possibly under Order VI, Rule 17, about which we say nothing), an amendment of the plaint to enable a proper description of the plaintiffs to appear in it in order to assist the Court in determining the real question or issue between the parties." These cases do no more than illustrate the well-settled rule that all amendments should be permitted as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, unless by permitting the amendment injustice may result to the other side. In the present case, the plaintiff was carrying on business as commission agent in the name of "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal". The plaintiff was competent to sue in his own name as Manager of the Hindu undivided family to which the business belonged; he says he sued on behalf of the family in the business name. The observations made by the High Court that the application for amendment of the plaint could not be granted, because there was no averment therein that the mis-description was on account of a bona fide mistake, and on that account the suit must fail, cannot be accepted. In our view, there is no rule that unless in an application for amendment of the plaint it is expressly averred that the error, omission or mis-description is due to a bona fide mistake, the Court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint. In our view, there is no rule that unless in an application for amendment of the plaint it is expressly averred that the error, omission or mis-description is due to a bona fide mistake, the Court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint. The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations." Further strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in BALDEV SINGH v. MANOHAR SINGH, 2006 (6) ALD 29 (SC) = (2006) 6 SCC 498 , wherein the Apex Court at para 14 observed as hereunder:- "As noted hereinearlier, the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent 1 was that his parents had no money to purchase the suit property and it was the plaintiff-respondent 1 who paid the consideration money. In the written statement, this fact was denied and further it was asserted in the written statement that the suit property was in fact purchased by their parents and they had sufficient income of their own. In the application for amendment of written statement it was stated that the plaintiff - respondent 1 did not have any income to pay the consideration money of the suit property and in fact the parents of the plaintiff - Respondent 1 had sufficient income to pay the sale price. It was only pointed out in the application for amendment that after the death of their parents, the suit property was mutated in the joint names of the plaintiff - Respondent 1 and the defendants in equal shares. Therefore, the question whether certain admissions made in the written statement were sought to be withdrawn is concerned, we find, as noted hereinearlier, there was no admission in the written statement from which it could be said that by filing an application for amendment of the written statement, the appellants had sought to withdraw such admission. It is true that in the original written statement, a statement has been made that it is defendant - appellant 1 who is the owner and is in continuous possession of the suit property, but in our view, the powers of the Court are wide enough to permit amendment of the written statement by incorporating an alternative plea of ownership in the application for amendment of the written statement. That apart, in our view, the facts stated in the application for amendment were in fact an elaboration of the defence case. Accordingly, we are of the view that the High Court as well as the trial Court had erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement on the ground that in the event such amendment was allowed, it would take away some admissions made by the defendant - appellants in their written statement. That apart, in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Limited (2001) 8 SCC 97 ), this Court held that even if there were some admissions in the evidence as well as in the written statement, it was still open to the parties to explain the same by way of filing an application for amendment of the written statement. That apart, mere delay of three years in filing the application for amendment of the written statement could not be a ground for rejection of the same when no serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the plaintiff-Respondent 1 so as to take away any accrued right." 11. Much emphasis had been laid on certain of the observations made by the Apex Court at para 14 relating to the raising of alternative pleas and also relating to the withdrawal of the admissions as well. However, Smt. Mammu Vani, the learned Counsel representing respondent placed strong reliance on HEERALAL v. KALYAN MAL, AIR 1998 SC 618 = 1998 (1) ALD (SCSN) 2, wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the amendment and seeking withdrawal of admission, came to the conclusion that the proposed amendment if allowed would displace plaintiff's case and his right to get preliminary partition decree, such amendment is impermissible. Further, Smt. Mammu Vani also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in AJENDRAPRASADJI N.PANDE v. SWAMI KESHAVPRAKESHDASJI N., 2007 (2) ALD 93 (SC), wherein the Apex Court at paras 51 and 52 observed:- "In our opinion, the facts above mentioned would also go to show that the appellants are lacking in bona fide in filing this special leave petition before this Court. It is also to be noticed that the High Court has recorded relevant points in its elaborate Judgment dated 5-10-2005 and have been dealt with despite the opposition of the contesting respondents that these pleas were not taken in the written statement. It is also to be noticed that the High Court has recorded relevant points in its elaborate Judgment dated 5-10-2005 and have been dealt with despite the opposition of the contesting respondents that these pleas were not taken in the written statement. Under these circumstances, non-seeking of appropriate amendment at appropriate stage in the manner envisaged by law has disentitled the appellants to any relief. The amendment, in our view, also seeks to introduce a totally new and inconsistent case. We have carefully perused the pleadings and grounds which are raised in the amendment application preferred by the appellants at Ex.95. No facts are pleaded nor any grounds are raised in the amendment application to even remotely contend that despite exercise of due diligence these matters could not be raised by the appellants. Under these circumstances, the case is covered by proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 and, therefore, the relief deserves to be denied. The grant of amendment at this belated stage when deposition and evidence of three witnesses is already over as well as the documentary evidence is already tendered, coupled with the fact that the appellants' application at Exh.64 praying for recasting of the issues having been denied and the said order never having been challenged by the appellants, the grant of the present amendment as sought for at this stage of the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the contesting respondents-original plaintiffs and hence it is in the interest of justice that the amendment sought for be denied and the petition be dismissed." The Apex Court also observed that the use of word 'may/shall', if word 'shall' in Proviso is construed as 'may' and not 'shall', exception carved out of permitting party to amend or alter pleadings only if he proves that in spite of due diligence he could not have raised matter would be unnecessarily rendered redundant and no Section should be so interpreted that apart of it becomes otiose and meaningless and very often a proviso itself is read as a substantive provision and it has to be given full effect. 12. Further Smt. Mammu Vani also had taken this Court through the decision of Baldev Singh's case (referred 2nd supra) and would maintain that the same is distinguishable on facts. 12. Further Smt. Mammu Vani also had taken this Court through the decision of Baldev Singh's case (referred 2nd supra) and would maintain that the same is distinguishable on facts. On a careful analysis of the respective stands taken by the parties in the affidavit filed in support of the application praying for the amendment of the written statement and also the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it is clear that at least two admissions which had been made in written statement are being withdrawn by virtue of the proposed amendments by introducing paras 5 (a) and 6(a) as well. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the trial already had commenced. I had given anxious consideration to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, except certain bald averments relating to the aspect of the diligence or to get over the rigour of the proviso, no acceptable explanation as such had been specified. Hence, viewed from any angle, on both the grounds i.e., the effect of allowing the proposed amendment would be permitting withdrawal of the admissions already made in the original written statement and also, inasmuch as, no acceptable grounds as such had been placed to get over the rigour of the proviso, the dismissal of the application by the learned Judge cannot be found fault. Even otherwise, this is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this is not a fit case where this Court may have to interfere under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.