JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. — In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in CMA No. 209 of 2008 allowing an application filed by present opposite party no.1 for amendment of her objection to the application filed by the peti¬tioner to recall/set aside order dated 11.5.2004 and decree dated 15.5.2004 passed in C.S. No. 238 of 2004-I. 2. The facts as narrated in the writ application are as follows: The petitioner is the defendant in C.S. No. 238 of 2004-I. Opposite party no.1 filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for a declaration that registered sale deed no. 8296 dated 29.12.2003 is illegal and inoperative for non-passing of consideration. Though the suit was posted for office note on 1.5.2004, the same was put up in advance on 16.4.2004 on which date the suit was admitted and notice was issued to the defendant fixing the date of appearance on 1.7.2004. However, on 11.5.2004, the matter was put up on the basis of advance petition. An Advocate purportedly appeared on behalf of the petitioner and compromise was recorded by the Court below on the basis of a compromise petition filed by both the parties. A decree to that effect was also passed on 16.5.2004. On verification of record, the petitioner found that the said compromise decree had been obtained by misutilising the paper entrusted by him to opposite party no. 2 who is a close neighbour of the petitioner. The petitioner was serving at Saudi Arabia in the year 2003 and he came to his native place in October, 2003. Opposite party no. 2 gave a proposal to the petitioner to pur¬chase a land situated adjacent to the Bank petrol pump at Station Square, Balasore for a consideration of Rs.7,23,215/-. The petitioner accepted the said proposal and also obtained a certi¬fied copy of the ROR, Non-encumbrance certificate for 13 years and confirmed that it was not transferred earlier. He purchased the non-judicial stamp paper, ‘FRANK’ for an amount of Rs.72,330/- in the name of opposite party no.1. A sale deed was drafted and submitted before the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore on 29.12.2003. The petitioner also paid the registration fee of Rs.14,525/-. He purchased the non-judicial stamp paper, ‘FRANK’ for an amount of Rs.72,330/- in the name of opposite party no.1. A sale deed was drafted and submitted before the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore on 29.12.2003. The petitioner also paid the registration fee of Rs.14,525/-. Prior to the execution of the sale deed, a Savings Bank Account was opened in the Indian Overseas Bank, Somnathpur Branch in the name of opposite party no.1. The petitioner depos¬ited Rs.5,00,000/- on 26.12.2003 and paid the rest consideration amount of Rs.2,23,215/- to opposite party no.1 at the time of execution of the sale deed, i.e., on 29.12.2003. Possession was delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner also obtained the original sale deed from the Sub-Registrar Office, Balasore on 12.1.2004. 3. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.2 proposed the petitioner to hand over all the documents including the original sale deed dated 29.12.2003 along with the written and unwritten signed paper to him so that he would take step to mutate the land in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner had no occasion to disagree to the said proposal and he handed over all the documents, sale deed, written and unwritten papers along with Vakalatanama to opposite party no.2 in presence of opposite party no.1 keeping a xerox copy of the same with him. He paid Rs.25,000/- towards the expenses of mutation case. Thereafter, the petitioner left Balasore in the 1st week of April, 2004. When the petitioner came to Balasore, he was shocked to notice that the sale deed dated 29.12.2003 in respect of the suit land had already been cancelled by virtue of a decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in C.S. No. 238 of 2004. Opposite party no.1 obtained the decree with the help of opposite party no.2. 4. After enquiring about the said fact, the petitioner found that the compromise decree was obtained by misutilising the paper entrusted by him to opposite party no.2. Therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in F.A.O. No. 86 of 2005 against opposite party nos. 1 and 2 challenging the collusive judgment and decree dated 11.5.2004 and 16.5.2004 respectively. This Court granted interim order of injunction and directed opposite party nos. 1 and 2 not to change the nature and character of the suit land. Therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in F.A.O. No. 86 of 2005 against opposite party nos. 1 and 2 challenging the collusive judgment and decree dated 11.5.2004 and 16.5.2004 respectively. This Court granted interim order of injunction and directed opposite party nos. 1 and 2 not to change the nature and character of the suit land. The FAO was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner that in case he files a proper application under Section 151, CPC before the trial Court, the same shall be disposed of as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of such application to recall the compromise decree and the name of opposite party no.2 was deleted from the FAO as he was not a party to the suit and liberty was also given to the petitioner that if so advised, he may implead opposite party no.2 as a party before the trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioner filed CMA No. 209 of 2008 before the trial Court along with an application for impleading opposite party no.2 as a party to the proceeding. However, the said application for impleading opposite party no.2 was rejected by the trial Court on 19.7.2008 against which the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 10862 of 2008 before this Court which was allowed on 22.10.2008 and opposite party no.2 was impleaded as a party to the said proceeding before the trial Court which issued notice to opposite party nos. 1 and 2. In CMA No. 209 of 2008, opposite party no.1 filed her objection. 5. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC to amend the objection filed by her. By the amendment sought, she wanted to introduce a new plea that sale deed dated 27/29.12.2003 is a void one and no delivery of posses¬sion was made and also she wanted to delete the admission made in paragraphs 8 and 21 of the objection where she admitted that due to non-payment of the present balance amount towards the consideration amount in respect of the sale deed and expression made by the petitioner not to pay anything more, she filed the case for cancellation of the sale deed. After receiving the notice of the said suit he tried to compromise the dispute. After receiving the notice of the said suit he tried to compromise the dispute. Accordingly, on the advice of the well-wishers, the dispute was solved. However, by way of amendment she wanted to introduce another new story that the father of the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff for treatment of his wife and expenses of higher education of the petitioner phase wise with the assurance that the said loan will be paid after the petitioner would get service. He also repaid the said amount and after that, also he has taken some loan from the plaintiff which he has not returned and repeated requests of the plaintiff having failed, when the plaintiff threatened to file an application for realization of the said loan amount, the petitioner filed the present case to reopen the compromise suit. 6. Subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the peti¬tioner, by the impugned order the trial Court allowed the amend¬ment sought by opposite party no.1 holding that by the proposed amendment, the nature, character and contents of the objection filed by opposite party no.1 will not change and the same is essential for proper adjudication of the CMA. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed this writ application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since two contradictory stories had been advanced by opposite party no.1, on the face of record it appears that she totally intro¬duced a new story which is an afterthought and by way of amend¬ment not only she wanted to withdraw her earlier admission which is prejudicial to the right of the present petitioner but also she is harassing him. Without considering the same, the Court below allowed the amendment application vide its order dated 7.1.2009 which is therefore liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the amendment is necessary for just decision of the case. There¬fore, rightly the Court below has allowed the application for amendment. The impugned order need not be interfered with by this Court. 9. Considering the rival submission of the parties and after going through the record, it appears that opposite party no.1 tried to introduce a new story of loan taken by the father of the petitioner and also wanted to withdraw the earlier admis¬sion made by her in the objection regarding the sale transaction. 9. Considering the rival submission of the parties and after going through the record, it appears that opposite party no.1 tried to introduce a new story of loan taken by the father of the petitioner and also wanted to withdraw the earlier admis¬sion made by her in the objection regarding the sale transaction. In case permission will be given to opposite party no.1 to withdraw such admission the petitioner will be highly prejudiced as he will be taken into surprise about the fact of loan and he has to contest the case in that aspect also which will cause severe harassment and prejudice to his right. 10. The apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 618 (Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and others) has observed that the party should not be allowed to withdraw the admission which will prejudice to the other side. The said decision was also upheld by the apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 680 (M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Ladharam and Co.). 11. This Court in the decision reported in 2006 (Supp-II) OLR 525 (Puena Chandra Samantaray and others v. Sarada Prasada Satyanarayan Samantaray) has held that amendment which are necessary for deciding the real issue but at the same time must take care that inconsistent, self-destructive pleadings are not taken and effect of an admission relating to the main issue is not taken away and in case admission sought to be taken away and allowing such amendment will amount to mutual destructive plead¬ings. 12. Taking into consideration the decision reported in 2000 SAR (Civil) 128 (B.K. Pillai v. P. Pillai and another) the apex Court observed that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence by way of amendment but the same is subject to any admis¬sion made in favour of the other side is not withdrawn. 13. Learned counsel for the opposite parties cited the decision reported in 2010 (I) OLR 757 and 2001 SC 3295 (M/s. Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd.) wherein it was held that amendment is usually to be allowed for just and fair deci¬sion of the case. 14. Law is well settled that the amendment which is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties is to be allowed. 14. Law is well settled that the amendment which is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties is to be allowed. However, the same is restricted to certain extent. 15. The apex Court in a decision reported in 2009 (II) OLR 815 (SC) (Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and sons and others) giving the guidelines as to how an application for amendment is to be considered observed as follows: “There are certain important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC by giving illustration as follows: 1. Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case ? 2. Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide ? 3. The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; 4. Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; 5. Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or funda¬mentally changes the nature and character of the case ? and 6. As a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. However, the above points are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” 16. Though the apex Court observed therein that while deciding applications for amendments the Courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments. It should also discourage mala fide amendments designed to delay the legal proceedings, compensate the other party for the delay and the inconvenience caused and to send a clear message that the parties have to be careful while drafting the original pleadings. 17. In the present case, though in the objection, opposite party no.1 by way of amendment introduced this total new story she did not file any application to amend her original plaint which indicates that the sale transaction had taken place and due to non-payment of consideration amount the suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed, so on and set forth. It further clear¬ly shows that opposite party no.1 intended only to delay the matter and her application for amendment of the objection is tainted with malafides. Those amendments are not necessary for just decision of the case. It further clear¬ly shows that opposite party no.1 intended only to delay the matter and her application for amendment of the objection is tainted with malafides. Those amendments are not necessary for just decision of the case. While passing the impugned order, the Court below has not considered all these facts. It has mechani¬cally allowed the application for amendment erroneously basing on the decisions of the apex Court but without discussing the same as to how the said decisions are applicable to the present case and how those pleas were just and necessary for proper adjudica¬tion of the dispute between the parties when the original plaint which is a part of the record has not been amended. 18. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 7.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in CMA No. 209 of 2008 and rejects the application filed by opposite party no.1 for amendment of her objection and imposes a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) on opposite party no.1 to be paid to the petitioner before the Court below within a period of six weeks from today. 19. Since the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree is pending before the Court below since 2008, this Court directs the Court below to dispose of the said application as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months or earlier from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20. The writ application is accordingly allowed. Application allowed.