The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of due diligence and the necessity for proposed amendments to decide the real dispute between the parties, while considering the potential prejudice or displacement of valuable admissions caused by the proposed amendment.

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.08.2015 passed on I.A. No. 3 in O.S. No. 3204/2013 by IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore - Annexure-A whereunder trial Court has rejected I.A. No. 3 filed by third defendant seeking amendment of written statement.

2. Respondents-1 and 2 herein have filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.06.2010 against defendants-1 and 2 represented by third defendant and seeking for execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs-1 and 2 jointly in respect of Schedule 'B' property. Defendants-1 and 2 have filed their written statement as per Annexure-C and so also third defendant as per Annexure-C1 and all defendants have denied the averments made in the plaint. After commencement of trial, third defendant has filed an application - I.A. No. 3 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Annexure-D seeking for amendment of written statement. Said application came to be opposed by plaintiffs by filing detailed statement of objections - Annexure-E and trial Court by impugned order dated 18.08.2015 - Annexure-A has dismissed the said application.

3. It is the contention of Sri Mohan Rao, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner - third defendant that petitioner is conversant with only Malayalam language and he was not aware of the contents of written statement filed earlier and only when third defendant changed his counsel by appointing a counsel conversant with Malayalam language, he became aware of certain facts of not having pleaded and as such, facts relevant for effective disposal of the case has been now pleaded in the proposed amendment of written statement and by allowing the said application no hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs. He would further elaborate his submission by contending that while considering an application for amendment of written statement, Courts should be liberal and rejection of the application in question by trial Court on the ground of delay is required to be set aside particularly when the proposed plea being relevant for disposal of the case. Hence, he seeks for allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.

In support of his submissions, he has relied upon following judgments:

(1) ESTRALLA RUBBER VS. DASS ESTATE (P) LTD. (2001) 8 SCC 97

(2) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, (2011) 12 SCC 268

(3) USHA BALASHAHEB SWAMI AND OTHERS VS. KIRAN APPASO SWAMI AND OTHERS, (2007) 5 SCC 602

4. Per contra, Sri T.N. Vijayaraghavan, learned Advocate appearing for respondents-1 and 2 i.e., plaintiffs has supported the impugned order and has contended that third defendant is attempting to withdraw the plea put forward and substitute the same with new plea and same ought not to be allowed, as plaintiffs have acquired valuable right and as such, the proposed amendment cannot be allowed and therefore writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

In support of his submissions, he has relied upon following judgments:

(1) M/S. MODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. M/S. LADHA RAM AND CO. AIR 1977 (1) SC 680

(2) HEERALAL VS. KALYAN MAL AND OTHERS, (1998) 1 SCC 278

(3) REVAJEETU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. NARAYANASWAMY AND SONS AND OTHERS, (2009) 10 SCC 84

(4) AJENDRAPRASADJI N. PANDE AND ANR. VS. SWAMI KESHAVPRAKESHDASJI N. AND ORS. AIR 2007 SC 806

(5) VIDYABAI & ORS. VS. PADMALATHA & ANR. AIR 2009 SC 1433

(6) SHIVA RAMA UPADYAYA VS. RAJA SATYANARAYANA SETTY, ILR 2003 KAR 4814

5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the pleadings as well as affidavit supporting the application for amendment, it would indicate that prime reason assigned by third defendant seeking for amendment of written statement is on the ground that all true facts though narrated to the then counsel engaged by third defendant, he had unfortunately not brought out these facts in the written statement already filed and on account of change of counsel, he was appraised of the true fac