IMPORTANT POINT
The grounds of rejection of plaint by Courts below are legally unjustified and based on non-application of mind to the exact nature of amendments. No prejudice could possibly be caused to respondents.

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-Leave granted. The appeal taken up for hearing.

2. By the impugned order the High Court of Kerala dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellants herein, and confirmed the order of the Trial Court rejecting the amendment to plaint in O.S. No. 61 of 1997 (on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara).

3. A suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,86,268 with future interest towards path-way fee and quarrying fee for various periods. The amendment application was filed at a stage when the suit was ripe for trial. In the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application, it is stated that certain omissions and mistakes crept into the plaint inadvertently and on account of the wrong advice given by the previous counsel engaged by the plaintiffs.

4. The learned trial Judge was of the view that the application was highly belated and moreover the proposed amendments were based on new cause of action and had the effect of changing the entire pleadings. It was further observed that the amendments would change the very nature and character of the suit. It was also commented that the plaintiffs were trying to withdraw some admissions in the original plaint. As an example, the Trial Court mentioned that "in the Original plaint, they had claimed amount as per the counter-claim granted by the court (in an earlier suit) and now they want to deviate from that plea".

5. The High Court was also of the view that the nature and character of the suit is sought to be changed by amending the plaint. At the same time, the High Court observed that there was no change in the cause of action or the total amount claimed. The High Court pointed out that the rate of passage fee per lorry was increased from Rs.10/- to Rs.14/- (Rs. 40/- mentioned in the judgment seems to be a mistake). Moreover, according to the High Court, if the deletions and additions in respect of paras 4 and 4(a) of the original plaint are allowed, they will contradict the averments in para 3 of the original plaint. The learned Judge then observed that the amendments, if allowed, will be prejudicial to the respondents on account of the "change in the main character of the suit". Though the High Court correctly noted the principle that liberal approach has to be adopted while deciding an amendment application and the possibility of prejudice to the other party is one of the considerations to be kept in mind, we are of the view that the High Court s conclusion is not in keeping with these principles. Having perused the averments, pleadings and the relief claimed in the original plaint as well as the amendment application coupled with the undisputed Agreement mentioned in the original plaint/I.A., we are of the view that the proposed amendments are not impermissible in law. The Trial Court as well as the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that by introducing the amendments, a new case is being made out or a new relief is being sought for. Nor can it be said that any of the pleadings in the amendment application have the effect of retracting from any admissions made in the original plaint. At first blush, it might appear that by the proposed amendments which undoubtedly expand the length of the plaint and seek substitution of certain figures in the relief portion, new pleas and reliefs are sought to be raised; but, on deeper analysis, it is not so. Unfortunately, the original plaint, though set out the main basis of the suit is rather cryptic and lacking in relevant particulars. There is a bare reference to the Agreement which is the foundation for appellant s claim. Not only that, the basic terms of the Agreement are not accurately stated in the original plaint. Even the specific date of the Agreement dated 12.7.1987 (which is the basis of the claim in the suit) has not been mentioned; instead only year is mentioned. All this would lend credence to the appellant s contention that sufficient care was not taken in drafting the