ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS FILED A SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS 5,77,300 BASED ON A DOCUMENT DATED 1-4-1995. THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS ARE CONTESTING THE SUIT. SOON AFTER EXAMINATION OF ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS, THE DEFENDANTS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT RAISING AN ADDITIONAL PLEA. THE PRAYER HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE TRIAL COURT AS ALSO BY THE HIGH COURT.

3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE HAD THE EFFECT OF DRASTICALLY ALTERING THE NATURE OF THE DEFENCE OR WITHDRAWING AN ADMISSION MADE EARLIER BY THE DEFENDANTS. UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC, THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO PERMIT AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS SUCH AMENDMENT IN THE PLEADINGS AS WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE REAL QUESTIONS IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

4. OF COURSE, BY THE TIME THE DEFENDANTS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT, THE TRIAL HAD COMMENCED BUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IF ALLOWED, WOULD NOT HAVE IRREPARABLY PREJUDICED THE PLAINTIFFS. AT THE MOST, THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE BEEN RE-EXAMIN