JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. CMP Nos. 20008/2013 & 20010/13 in CWP No. 8662 of 2013. The Writ Petitioners-applicants have laid motion No. 20008 of 2013 for arraying non-applicants as party in the array of respondents on the grounds taken in the memo of the application. The petitioners-applicants have also moved CMP No. 20010 of 2013 for leave to amend the Writ Petition. 2. Respondents have resisted the same. No notice has been issued to the non-applicants sought to be arrayed as parties so far. 3. Heard. 4. Both these applications are applications of procedure and have been filed in terms of the mandate of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC). 5. Rules of procedure are not themselves an end but are the means to achieve the ends of justice. Procedural laws are meant to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same. In this backdrop, it is necessary to keep in view the provisions of Civil Procedure Code read with the object of the procedural laws and to give a flash back of the case, the womb of which has given rise to the applications in hand, as under: 6. A show cause notice dated 7th September, 2013, was issued by the Registrar of Societies, Department of Cooperation-respondent No. 2 herein to the petitioners which was challenged by the medium of Civil Writ Petition No. 7593 of 2013. This Court disposed of the abovesaid Writ Petition by directing respondent No. 2 to decide the issue raised by the petitioners and if that goes against the petitioners, no further order be passed for a period of 10 days enabling the petitioners to question the same. 7. In pursuance to the said directions, the petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2. The said respondent heard them. Respondents No. 1 & 3 to 10-State on 26 October, 2013, made a decision cancelling the lease granted to the petitioners which was followed by follow up actions contained in the impugned letters/orders/communications. After two days, i.e. on 28th October, 2013, respondent No. 2 made the order which is partly in favour of the petitioners and partly against them, according to them. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have questioned the action(s) of the respondents contained in orders/letters/communications dated 26th October, 2013 and order 28th October, 2013 made by respondent No. 2, partly by the medium of this Writ Petition, titled above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have questioned the action(s) of the respondents contained in orders/letters/communications dated 26th October, 2013 and order 28th October, 2013 made by respondent No. 2, partly by the medium of this Writ Petition, titled above. 8. Alongside the writ petition, the petitioners have moved the application for grant of interim relief. Respondents have resisted the same and this Court after hearing the parties made interim direction vide order dated 5th November, 2013. In the said order this Court made some observations and status quo ante was granted. 9. Respondents No. 1 & 3 to 10-State after noticing the said order, withdrew the order dated 26th October, 2013, along with all follow up orders/letters/communications, made by respondents No. 1 & 3 to 10 on 18/19th November, 2013. 10. The petitioners also filed these two applications in terms of the said order enabling them to rectify/cure the defects which were pressed into service by the respondents while contesting the miscellaneous petition for grant of interim relief. 11. This Court has observed that the technical defects are curable and accordingly petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is made for rectifying the said technical defects and also it is sought that the non-applicants, particulars of which are given in the said application, be also arrayed as parties in the array of the respondents on the ground that all these actions have been drawn against the writ petitioners on their directions and are malafide one. Alongside, the application for arraying them as party in the array of the respondents in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC being CMP No. 20008 of 2013, has also been made. Respondents have filed objections in both the applications. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned actions, letters/communications/orders made by the respondents are the outcome of malafide and politically motivated. The petitioners have filed application for leave to amend in order to enable the petitioners to plead all those grounds which are available in their armory as a weapon to defend the impugned actions. 13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the non-applicants are important and necessary parties, thus impleadment is must and amendment is also required in order to make effective decision and to set at rest all the controversies involved. 14. Mr. 13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the non-applicants are important and necessary parties, thus impleadment is must and amendment is also required in order to make effective decision and to set at rest all the controversies involved. 14. Mr. R.S.Cheema, learned senior counsel for respondents No. 1 & 3 to 10 argued that the arguments advanced are of no weight for the reason that respondents No. 1 & 3 to 10-State have already withdrawn the impugned order dated 26th October, 2013 and follow up action i.e. letters/communications and orders issued in consequence thereto, thus the writ petition so far it relates to relief No. (a) has become infructuous. Further, he argued that the withdrawal orders have been made on 18/19th November, 2013 (Annexure R-1) with short reply filed by respondents No. 1 & 3 to 10-State and petitioners have knowledge of the said order but despite of that the applications have been drafted on 20th November, 2013 and filed. 15. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General for respondent No. 2 argued that these applications are just to fill up the lacunas and to cure technical defects and are meaningless for the reason that the order dated 26th October, 2013 is no more in force rather is non-existent and has lost its efficacy. 16. The Writ Petition contains 59 paras and prayer/relief clause. Paras 1 to 54 deals with the factual background, other details and revolve around the impugned order dated 26th October, 2013, read with follow up letters/communications/orders. Para 55 deals with order dated 28th October, 2013 (Annexure P-3) made by respondent No. 2. Para 56 contains the grounds on which the quashment is sought of the orders passed. Para 56-A, B, C, D, E, F relate to the impugned order dated 26th October, 2013 and letters/communications/orders in consequence thereto. Para 56-G & H deal with order dated 28th October, 2013 made by respondent No. 2. Other paras i.e. 56-I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, T also relate to orders/communications/letters dated 26th October, 2013. 17. Para 56-A, B, C, D, E, F relate to the impugned order dated 26th October, 2013 and letters/communications/orders in consequence thereto. Para 56-G & H deal with order dated 28th October, 2013 made by respondent No. 2. Other paras i.e. 56-I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, T also relate to orders/communications/letters dated 26th October, 2013. 17. The petitioners have sought leave to amend the writ petition vide CMP No. 20010 of 2013, on the grounds contained in paras 4-(viii), (ix), (x), (xii), (xiv), (xvi) to the extent of 54 B, (xvii), (xviii), (xix), & (xxi), which is just to supplement the foundation of attack to impugned order dated 28 October, 2013 and to rectify the errors and mistakes crept in the Writ Petition and affidavit attached to the same. The other grounds contained in the CMP relate to the impugned orders/letters/communications dated 26th October, 2013. 18. The purpose of granting leave to amend is just to settle the controversy once and for all and to allow the parties to raise all issues, disputes and to seek all reliefs by the medium of one lis. Thus, the purpose is meant to secure the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same. While examining the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, one comes to inescapable conclusion that amendment can be granted at any stage, in order to secure the ends of justice. The Apex Court in M/s Ganesh Trading Co. versus Moji Ram reported in AIR (1978) 2 SCC 91 , Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others versus K.K.Modi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 , J. Samuel and others versus Gattu Mahesh and others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 300 , has laid the same principles. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vrs K. K. Modi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 385 , which reads thus: “18. As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without deciding whether such an amendment is necessary has expressed certain opinion and entered into a discussion on merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the Court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court.” 19. It is also profitable to reproduce paragraph 18 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J. Samuel and others versus Gattu Mahesh and others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 300. “18. The primary aim of the court is to try the case on its merits and ensure that the rule of justice prevails. For this the need is for the true facts of the case to be placed before the court so that the court has access to all the relevant information in coming to its decision. Therefore, at times it is required to permit parties to amend their plaints. The Court's discretion to grant permission for a party to amend his pleading lies on two conditions, firstly, no injustice must be done to the other side and secondly, the amendment must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However to balance the interests of the parties in pursuit of doing justice, the proviso has been added which clearly states that: “…no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 20. While applying the test, the application, so far it relates to cure defects, to make some corrections and to supplement foundation in order to assail order dated 28 October, 2013, made by respondent No. 2, the mention of which is made in para 17 (supra) is for the purpose of determining the real controversy and to reach to the just conclusion, is to be granted. It is beaten law of the land that the procedural wrangles, tangles, technicalities and niceties cannot come in the way of curing defects which are curable, moreso to advance the cause of justice. 21. Admittedly, the petitioners have sought writ of certiorari quashing orders/letters/communications dated 26 October, 2013 made by respondents No. 1 & 3 to 10-State, which stands withdrawn and has lost life in its entirety. Thus, virtually, the writ petition so far it relates to the said prayer has become infructuous. 22. Pleadings play an important role because the cases are to be determined on the basis of pleadings. The Courts cannot travel beyond the pleadings and it is for the parties to accept, to deny specifically facts/grounds urged. If grounds pleaded by one party are not specifically denied by other party, it is presumed to be deemed to have been admitted. 23. It is the mandate of the law to gather what is the true spirit behind a ‘plea’. While examining the Writ Petition and leave to amend application in hand, it appears that the petitioners have tried to plead a case of malafide against the State particularly on the grounds that the impugned order/letters/communications or follow up orders dated 26 October, 2013 are outcome of political rivalry and based on malafides. 24. It is also beaten law of the land that in order to hold that the impugned action is malafide one, there must be firm foundation of facts. The Apex Court has laid down test when the action can be said to be a malafide one. In the case of Tara Chand Khatri versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, (1977) 1 SCC 472 , at para 29, it has been held as follows: “29. This brings us to the last contention raised by Mr. Ramamurthi that the writ petition should not have been dismissed by the High Court in limine in view of the fact that it contained allegations of mala fides against the respondents. This brings us to the last contention raised by Mr. Ramamurthi that the writ petition should not have been dismissed by the High Court in limine in view of the fact that it contained allegations of mala fides against the respondents. We are unable to accept this contention. It has been held time and again by this Court that the High Court would be justified in refusing to carry on investigation into the allegations of mala fides if necessary particulars of the charge making out a prima facie case are not given in the writ petition. Keeping in view the well established rule that the burden of establishing mala fides lies very heavily on the person who alleges it and considering all the allegations made by the appellant in regard thereto, we do not think that they could be considered as sufficient to establish malus animus. The High Court was therefore, not wrong in dismissing the petition in limine on seeing that a prima facie case requiring investigation had not been made out.” 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Singh and others versus Chairman, Purvanchal Gramin Bank and others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 292 , at paragraph 34, has held as under: “34. Thus, as a proposition of law, the burden of proving mala fide is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Mere allegation is not enough. Party making such allegations is under the legal obligation to place specific materials before the Court to substantiate the said allegations. There has to be very strong and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of mala fides specifically and definitely alleged in the petition as the same cannot merely be presumed. The presumption under law is in favor of the bona fides of the order unless contradicted by acceptable material.” 26. There has to be very strong and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of mala fides specifically and definitely alleged in the petition as the same cannot merely be presumed. The presumption under law is in favor of the bona fides of the order unless contradicted by acceptable material.” 26. In another decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab versus V.K. Khanna and others & connected case, reported in AIR 2001 SC 343 , at paragraph 25, it has been held as under: “25……….The expression 'malafide' has a definite significance in the legal phraseology and the same cannot possibly emanate out of fanciful imagination or even apprehensions but there must be existing definite evidence of bias and actions which cannot be attributed to be otherwise bonafide - actions not otherwise bonafide, however, by themselves would not amount to be malafide unless the same is in accompaniment with some other factors which would depict a bad motive or intent on the part of the doer of the act.” 27. Applying the test, it is a moot question whether the orders made by the Cabinet and follow up actions made by State authorities/functionaries and the order made by respondent No. 2 who is a statutory authority are malafide one, we deem it proper to refrain ourselves to discuss and to return findings for the reason that the impugned order/letters/communications of which quashment is sought, on the ground of malafides or political rivalry, stands withdrawn and is not in force. 28. It is also apt to mention herein that the order made by respondent No. 2 is partly in favour of the petitioners and partly against them and it appears that is why the petitioners have not arrayed respondent No. 2 as party in person in the lis nor have sought his impleadment in personal capacity on the ground of malafide or he has acted under some instructions. 29. Viewed thus, leave to amend the writ petition sought on the grounds except grounds (supra) has become meaningless and is a futile exercise. 30. 29. Viewed thus, leave to amend the writ petition sought on the grounds except grounds (supra) has become meaningless and is a futile exercise. 30. We, however, wonder why the petitioners have filed another motion for arraying non-applicants as party-respondents in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and that is also drafted on 20 November, 2013 and filed on 22 November, 2013 alongwith the application for leave to amend for the reason that applicants/writ petitioners have already sought the said relief in para 4(vii) in the application for leave to amend is mis-conceived. Thus, application for impleadment in terms of order 1 Rule 10 CPC, CMP No. 20008 of 2013 is dismissed. 31. Having glance of the above, the application for leave to amend i.e. CMP No. 20010 of 2013 is disposed of, as indicated above. CWP No. 8662 of 2013 & CWP No. 8746 of 2013. 32. The petitioners to file amended writ petition in terms of this order within three weeks with advance copy to learned counsel for the respondents. Respondents to file reply thereto within two weeks thereafter. The Registry to list the main Writ Petition and CMP No. 21039 of 2013 moved by respondent No. 2 alongwith CWP No. 8746 of 2013 for consideration on 22 March, 2014.