ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Mamta R. Vyas appearing for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.K. V. Gadhia appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, challenging the Order dated 13.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Application No.1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No.4997 of 2007, whereby the Civil Application for amendment filed by the appellants has been rejected. 3. The appellants – original petitioners have preferred the said Special Civil Application with the following prayers: “A) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application & further be pleased to hear this Special Civil Application & dispose of as expeditiously as possible; B) by a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent corporation to correct the formula adopted by the Respondent Corporation for (i) fixing revised basic pension, (ii) commuted value & (iii) deduction of commuted portion with interest & (iv) for late payment of commuted value with interest & payment be made accordingly; C) that whatever recovery of commuted portion effected with retrospective date in case of petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 be ordered to be refunded with interest from the date of recovery till the date of payment. ALATERNATIVELY, Payment may kindly be ordered to be made with interest to the petitioners Nos.2 to 5 as per charts shown in annexure in the petition. D) to grant such other & further reliefs as may be deemed fit or proper in the facts and circumstance of the case. E) cost of this petition may kindly be awarded. And for this act of kindness & justice, the petitioners shall as in duty bound for every pray.” 4. It appears that during the pendency of the petition, the appellants – original petitioners came across the Notification dated 14.05.1999, as the representation made by the petitioners was rejected, relying upon the said Notification, which was placed on record along with the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The appellants, therefore, preferred the Civil Application for amendment, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 6. 5. The appellants, therefore, preferred the Civil Application for amendment, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 6. Learned advocate Ms.Mamta R. Vyas for the appellants – original petitioners submitted that the actual controversy involved in the petition was not considered by the learned Single Judge, as the prayer was already made for correcting the wrong formula. However, only the Notification, which is the basis of such alleged wrong formula, was not mentioned in the petition and, therefore, the petitioners now wants to challenge such Notification, which has resulted into application of the wrong formula for computation of pension. 7. It was, therefore, submitted that there is no change in the nature of the petition or the subject matter of the petition by the amendment sought by the applicants and, therefore, the rejection of the application on the ground of delay would not survive. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.K.V. Gadhia for the respondents submitted that no interference is called for in the Interlocutory Order while exercising the limited jurisdiction under the Letters Patent, as the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting the application for amendment on the ground of delay by relying upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the settled legal position. 9. It was further submitted that the petitioners were supposed to be aware of the Notification of 1999, which is sought to be challenged in the year 2020 and as such, after more than 21 years, such Notification is not required to be challenged. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that a number of employees have taken the benefit of such Notification and, therefore, the petitioners should not be given any further chance to challenge such Notification. 10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, the appellants – original petitioners have only sought an amendment of the petition to challenge the Notification dated 14.05.1999, which, in fact, does not change the nature of the petition, where the prayers are only for applying the correct formula and the Notification is the basis of the alleged wrong formula applied by the respondents. 11. Therefore, as the petition is pending, the respondents can make all submissions, for opposing the amendment, once the amendment is granted. 12. 11. Therefore, as the petition is pending, the respondents can make all submissions, for opposing the amendment, once the amendment is granted. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr., decided on 01.09.2022 in Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022, as to when an amendment is to be allowed as under: “70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)” 13. In view of the above settled legal position and the dictum of law of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal is allowed and the impugned Order is partly set aside. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)” 13. In view of the above settled legal position and the dictum of law of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal is allowed and the impugned Order is partly set aside. The amendment application, being Civil Application No.1 of 2020, is hereby allowed. As the matter is pending for more than 19 years, the same may be heard expeditiously by the appropriate Bench as the matter is already listed in the Wednesday Weekly List. It is clarified that the respondents are entitled to file a reply once the amendment is carried out by the applicants. 14. In view of the above, Civil Application No.1 of 2025 would not survive and the same also stands disposed of.