Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioners/defendants have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.8, Shimla on an application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents claiming amendment in the plaint that prior to 2.11.2007 they were not aware of the fact that defendants No.4 to 8 had no relationship with late Shri Matharoo Ram and it was the first time they came to know about this fact when copies of jamabandi as referred in the application were obtained by them. They were misguided by wrong and false pleadings in the written statement as well as in the deposition on oath before the Court. They claimed to have been defrauded by false affidavits etc. The application then proceeds that these defendants have categorically admitted in the written statement as also in their evidence before the learned trial Court while they appeared as witness that Shri Matharoo alone used to cut grass from Taxi Ghasni, Hiri-ki-Besak till his death and the permit to cut grass was also issued in his favour. The right was personal to him and this right thereafter vested in the plaintiffs as they had purchased the entire land of Shri Mathroo Ram. It was submitted that the relationship of the defendants No.4 to 8 with Matharoo Ram was material and in that event pleadings were sought to be added to the effect that the land of Shri Matharoo was purchased by the plaintiffs and performa defendants and he had no relationship with defendants No.4 to 8. The application was resisted by the contesting defendants. 2. The learned trial Court in its order allowed the application holding that from the contents of Ex.PW5/A which was tendered in evidence on 26.6.2004, the plaintiffs could have knowledge about the fact that the Matharoo was adopted son of Daula and in this event there was lack of due diligence on their part. The Court then proceeds that the what the plaintiffs seeks to amend or incorporate would not affect the rights of the contesting defendants as pedigree table shows that he was not their real grand father but was the brother of their grand father and was related to them as their agnate. The Court then proceeds that the what the plaintiffs seeks to amend or incorporate would not affect the rights of the contesting defendants as pedigree table shows that he was not their real grand father but was the brother of their grand father and was related to them as their agnate. They were not his Class-I or Class-II heirs and in case the amendment is allowed to be brought on record of the case, it would not affect the legislative relation between the parties. The application was allowed. 3. The defendants/petitioner now challenges this order under Article 227. A number of submissions have been made by the counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K.K. Modi and others, (2006)4 SCC 385 , holds: “16. Order 6 Rule 17 consist of two parts whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 17. In our view, since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit.” (pp.392-393) 5. Adverting to the principle laid down hereinabove, the Court holds:- “20. ... … … … … The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide. There is a plethora of precedents pertaining to the grant or refusal of permission for amendment of pleadings. The various decisions rendered by this Court and the proposition laid down therein are widely known. This Court has consistently held that the amendment to pleading should be liberally allowed since procedural obstacles ought not to impede the dispensation of justice. … … … …” (pp.393-394) 6. The various decisions rendered by this Court and the proposition laid down therein are widely known. This Court has consistently held that the amendment to pleading should be liberally allowed since procedural obstacles ought not to impede the dispensation of justice. … … … …” (pp.393-394) 6. It was urged by learned counsel appearing for the defendants/petitioners that amendment was belated, averments are false, and order passed by the learned trial Court is not in consonance with law and is not a speaking order. There was no exercise of due diligence by the applicants and in this eventuality the application deserves to be rejected. 7. What I find from the material on record of the present case that the parties have been litigating for a protracted period of time. The plaintiffs only seek an amendment in which relationship of defendants No.4 to 8 and Shri Matharoo Ram is sought to be brought on record of the case. It was urged for my consideration that amendment seeks to take away admissions having been made by the plaintiffs. All that I need say in these circumstances is that relationship would stand established from the proved facts and not from the purported admissions made. The relationship of the contesting defendants with late Shri Matharoo Ram is a question of fact and not one admission. In this eventuality, I do not find that the learned trial Court has been remiss in allowing the application for amendment. This I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. All pending applications also stand disposed of.