(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Makrana, in Civil Suit No. 2/1996 passed on 2-9-1999 rejecting the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Prodecure (hereinafter called "the Code") for amendment in the plaint.
(2.) The said application has been rejected giving the details of the plaint, by the learned trial Court on the ground that the facts suggested in the amendment application are already on record and on the said issues, evidence has already been led, thus, by amendment; the facts sought to be incorporated were not necessary to determine the real controversy in issue between the parties.
(3.) It is settled legal proposition that amendment in the pleadings may generally be allowed and the amendment may also be allowed at a belated stage. However, it should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The amendment sought should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Application for amendment may be rejected if the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him injury which could not be compensated in terms of cost or change the nature of the suit itself as it cannot be permitted to create an entirely new case by amendment. A right accrued in favour of a party by lapse of time cannot be permitted to be taken away by amendment. Amendment can also be allowed at appellate stage. Introduction of an entirely new case, displacing even admission by a party is not permissible. (Vide P.H.Patil v. Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil & Ors.; Nanduri Yogananda Laxminarisimhachari & Ors. v. Agasthe Swarswamivaru; M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co.; Pandit Ishwardas v. State of M.P.; and Mulk Raj Batra v. District Judge, Dehradun).