JUDGMENT Thomas P Joseph, J. 1. Ext.P8, order dated 19.12.2012 on LA.No.4665 of 2012 In O.S.No.563 of 2011 of the Sub Court, Kottayam refusing amendment of plaint to incorporate paragraph 7A is under challenge in this original petition. 2. Petitioner filed O.S.No.563 of 2011 for recovery of Rs. 2,35,20,833/- with interest and cost from the respondents. According to the petitioner, it had transaction with the respondents in Indian currency, the business being that petitioner used to give Indian currency to the respondents which in turn gave foreign currency to the petitioner. It is the further case of petitioner that respondents by depositing title deeds as revealed by Ext. P1, memo dated 08.03.2010 created equitable mortgage in favour of petitioner for due repayment of the amount. That was followed by ExtP2, affidavit dated 15,10.2010 of the respondents acknowledging (allegedly) liability to the petitioner. Petitioner prayed for a decree for realisation of the amount by sale of property over which equitable mortgage was created. 3. Respondents filed written statement raising various contentions. They denied liability to the petitioner and creation of equitable mortgage. According to the respondents, there was some other transaction in which respondents availed loan. In connection with that loan, documents of title were handed over. They also contended that documents of title were returned to the respondent on 26.05.2010. 4. Case was posted for trial in the list. Plaint was signed and verified by the legal officer of petitioner. Proof affidavit was prepared by the Chartered Accountant of petitioner. At that stage, petitioner filed Ext.P6, application for amendment of plaint to incorporate paragraph 7A to contend that there was irregularity in payments made by the respondents and hence petitioner decided not to provide additional funding of Rs. 2 Crores. Accordingly, on 26.05.2010 petitioner returned the documents of title through the branch in charge of respondents. Respondents were exerting much pressure again and again for funding of Rs. 2 Crores, After much pressurization and good assurance from the respondents that payments in foreign currency will be made promptly, petitioner made a further payment of Rs.2 Crores on 31.05.2010. Respondents agreed to create equitable mortgage with regard to the properties scheduled and accordingly on 14.06.2010 deposited title deeds with petitioner at its Cochin branch with intention to create equitable mortgage. 5. Respondents agreed to create equitable mortgage with regard to the properties scheduled and accordingly on 14.06.2010 deposited title deeds with petitioner at its Cochin branch with intention to create equitable mortgage. 5. The application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds including that amendment if allowed would alter nature and character of the suit and that attempt is to take away admissions made in the plaint and proof affidavit. A further contentions raised is that amendment is intended to plug loopholes in the case of petitioner which shall not be allowed. 6. Learned Sub Judge was impressed by the contentions raised by the respondents. Learned Sub Judge took a view that if amendment is allowed, nature and character of the suit will change, petitioner is attempting to protract the proceeding and that this Court had issued a direction to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment of this Court. Ext.P6, application was dismissed by Ext.P8, order. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the decision in Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd. (2012)5 SCC 337 ) to contend that policy of Court is to adopt a liberal approach so far as amendment is concerned, rather than taking a hypertechnical approach. Learned counsel contends that amendment would not take away any of the averments already made in the plaint nor change nature and character of the suit. It is also contended that since petitioner is claiming recovery of Rs. 2,35,20,833/- with interest and cost, it is difficult to think that petitioner is protracting the proceeding to its detriment, 8. Learned counsel for respondent has referred me to Exts.R1 (a) and R1(c) to contend that respondents had taken up their defence even before institution of the suit and that petitioner was aware of that. According to the learned counsel, it is difficult to think that an establishment like petitioner which has legal expertise to prepare the plaint was unaware of the defence respondents are taking up as revealed from Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). In the circumstance, prayer for amendment at a belated stage was rightly rejected. Learned counsel also contended that amendment If allowed would affect contentions respondents have taken up In their written statement. It would also result in allowing petitioner to plug loopholes in its case. In the circumstance, prayer for amendment at a belated stage was rightly rejected. Learned counsel also contended that amendment If allowed would affect contentions respondents have taken up In their written statement. It would also result in allowing petitioner to plug loopholes in its case. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Sankaranarayanan v. Charumathi, ( 2001(1) KLT 325 ) and Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Ors, ( (2009)10 SCC 84 ). 9. Before going into the rival contentions, it is apposite that I should refer to the decisions learned counsel on both sides have relied on. In Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd. (supra) the Supreme court states that the Court should adopt a liberal approach instead of hypertechnical approach in allowing amendment. In Sankaranarayanan v. Charumathi (supra) this Court with reference to a request for amendment of mode of consideration stated in the plaint, held that request cannot be allowed after written statement is filed to change the mode of consideration already stated in the plaint (that decision can only be understood as with respect to the facts of the case involved). In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Ors. (supra), the Supreme court states that the basic test which must govern grant or refusal of amendment is that amendment is necessary for determination of real question in controversy or for proper and effective adjudication of the case. The Court is to consider potentiality of prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to the other side by the amendment. Amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. Court is. to take into account whether proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes nature and character of the suit. Other factors/principles to be kept in mind while granting or refusing the amendment are also reiterated by the Supreme Court, Guided by the principles stated in the decisions of the apex court referred above, I shall approach the claim of petitioner. 10. It is not disputed that even as per the plaint originally filed, petitioner claimed that respondents had created equitable mortgage in its favour by deposit of title deeds and obviously on that basis, petitioner prayed for a decree for recovery of money by sale of properties scheduled. 10. It is not disputed that even as per the plaint originally filed, petitioner claimed that respondents had created equitable mortgage in its favour by deposit of title deeds and obviously on that basis, petitioner prayed for a decree for recovery of money by sale of properties scheduled. Respondents resisted that contention and stated circumstance under which four documents of title referred to in Ext,P1 happened to be In the custody of petitioner. They have a contention that they had not created any equitable mortgage in favour of petitioner and that it was under a different circumstance that those documents were given to the petitioner. They also claimed that those documents were returned to them on 26.05.2010 and in the circumstance stated in the written statement, those documents were again handed over to the petitioner on 14.06.2010. True, same defence was taken up by him in Ext.R1(b), reply notice. Even without the amendment as prayed for in Ext.P6, application the suit continues to be one for recovery of money by sale of properties (allegedly) mortgaged to the petitioner. Therefore, I am convinced that allowing Ext.P6, application would not affect the nature and character of the suit. 11. Nor am I inclined to think that if amendment is allowed it would affect or prejudice the contention raised by the respondents as they have already taken up the stand that there was no equitable mortgage in favour of petitioner and that documents of title happened to be handed over to the petitioner in the circumstance pleaded in the written statement. That contention continues to be there, and even in answer to the amended plaint, it is open to the respondent to raise appropriate contentions if they are so advised. Prejudice being caused to the respondents on account of amendment does not arise. 12. Then the question is whether amendment would result in taking away any "admission" (allegedly) made by the petitioner in the plaint?. Various authorities on the point say that a party cannot be allowed to take away the admission by deleting the so called admissions. But the authorities also say that a party (allegedly) making an admission under a wrong impression is entitled to explain away the admission, As aforesaid, none of the averments already made in the plaint as originally filed is attempted to be taken away - those allegations remain as such. But the authorities also say that a party (allegedly) making an admission under a wrong impression is entitled to explain away the admission, As aforesaid, none of the averments already made in the plaint as originally filed is attempted to be taken away - those allegations remain as such. It is only that an additional paragraph-paragraph 7A is to Incorporated, Therefore question of taking away the (so called) admission if any in the plaint does not arise. It is in the nature of explaining whatever that is already stated in the plaint that amendment is prayed for. 13. The mere fact that this Court had directed disposal of the suit within a time frame need not prevent learned Sub Judge from considering the request for amendment. If necessary, learned Sub Judge had to request this Court for extension of time pointing out the difficulties in disposing the suit within the time frame in view of the amendment and the proceeding that would follow. 14. Having heard learned counsel on both sides I am inclined to hold that amendment as prayed for is necessary to decide the real controversy involved In the suit. Therefore amendment ought to have been allowed. I make it clear that it is open to the respondents to raise whatever defence they have to the amended plaint and as they are advised, which they can take up in the additional written statement they are entitled to file in answer to the amended plaint. In the above view, Ext P8, order cannot stand and is liable to be set aside and I do so. Resultantly this original petition is allowed as under: (i) Ext.P8, order dated 19.12.2012 on I.A.No.4665 of 2012 in O.S.No.563 of 2011 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam is set aside. (ii) I.A.No.4665 of 2012 (Ext.P6, application) is allowed. Petitioner/plaintiff shall carry out amendment as prayed for in I.A.No.4665 of 2012 within seven (7) days from the date on which a copy of this judgment is received in the trial court. (iii) Respondents shall be given opportunity to file additional written statement in answer to the amended plaint.