ORDER : 1. The petitioner who is the plaintiff before the trial Court has challenged the order on I.A.No.4 whereby the application to amend the plaint has been dismissed. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking for judgment and decree directing defendant No.1 to pay certain sums of amount which the plaintiff states was due to be paid under the maintenance agreement dated 15.10.2008 and subsequently renewed maintenance agreement dated 02.11.2011. The plaintiff had filed an application seeking to amend the plaint to include certain additional pleadings, making reference to the joint development agreement dated 29.09.1993 and stating that the defendant No.1 was party to the said agreement and obligation to pay maintenance would flow under the said development also. Reference is made to other subsequent agreement deed of understanding to state that the defendant No.1 was liable to pay the maintenance amount. The factual narrations are also sought to be brought on record. 2. The said application was objected to by the 1st defendant, it was claimed that the nature of suit would change if the application was allowed and that the plaintiff cannot seek to improve the case by placing reliance on other documents as the liability would flow only under the agreement dated 02.11.2011. 3. The trial Court has dismissed the application while observing that the plaintiff was seeking to rely on the joint development agreement to which the plaintiff was not a party. The trial Court has also held that the basis for claim is only as regards the agreement dated 02.11.2011. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order and contends that the trial Court ought not to have entered into the merits of the contention while dealing with the application for amendment, that rights of the 1st defendant to pay maintenance would also flow under the joint development agreement dated 29.09.1993 to which the st defendant is a party and that it cannot be said that new case is sough to be established insofar as at the most the agreement would supplement the claim of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the 1st defendant is obliged to pay maintenance charges on the basis of various agreements that have been entered into including maintenance agreement as well as joint development agreement. 5. It is further submitted that the 1st defendant is obliged to pay maintenance charges on the basis of various agreements that have been entered into including maintenance agreement as well as joint development agreement. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would contend that the amendment was essentially to include necessary averments regarding the joint development agreement but the joint development agreement was with one M/s.Virwani Builders and the same would not have a bearing as regards the liability of the 1st defendant. 6. Having heard both sides it must be noted that the application has been filed at a stage prior to the commencement of evidence. It is also to be noted that as 1st to whether the joint development agreement by the defendant would supplement the maintenance agreement dated 02.11.2011 is a matter for trial. It cannot be said that the reliance on the joint development agreement by itself would result in changing the nature of the claim that is put forth. The claim being one for recovery, manner of proof of liability is a matter to be demonstrated during trial. Accordingly, this Court does not accept the contention of the defendant that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. The trial Court has also erred in entering into the 1st merits of the matter including the liability of the defendant under the joint development agreement by adverting to the facts that the plaintiff is not a party to the said agreement. Merits of the matter ought not to be entered into while dealing with permissibility of the amendment. 7. Taking note that no serious prejudice as such would be caused to the defendant if the amendment is permitted in light of the discussion as above the impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 8. It is made clear that the contention of the parties are kept open and the observations made herein is not to be taken to be a conclusive finding with respect to the merits of the matter and are made only for the purpose of disposing of the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 8. It is made clear that the contention of the parties are kept open and the observations made herein is not to be taken to be a conclusive finding with respect to the merits of the matter and are made only for the purpose of disposing of the present petition. The suit to be disposed of taking note of the administrative instructions relating to disposal of the suits of more than 5 years as per administrative circular No.6/2018 dated 06.08.2018.