The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment to the pleadings should be allowed if it is necessary for the determination of the real controversies in the suit and does not cause prejudice or injustice to the other party.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of parties.

2. This petition impugnes the order passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded, below Exhibit-17 in Regular Civil Suit No. 463/2016.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the property given on rent to the respondent/defendant on the ground of bonafide requirement, default in payment of rent and for recovery of rent. On failure of the respondent/defendant to file written statement, no written statement order was passed against him. The petitioner then filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. Thereafter, the trial Court by setting aside the no written statement order, permitted the respondent to file written statement. In the written statement the respondent denied the ownership of the Petitioner claiming that he purchased the suit property from one Vijaymala Namdeo Kamble by a sale deed.

4. after going through the written statement, the Petitioner filed application Exhibit-17 seeking amendment in the plaint in claim clause, in prayer clause and in the pleadings claiming that if the court comes to a conclusion that the defendant is trespasser, the compensation be awarded to the petitioner so also mesne profit for wrongful possession. The trial Court rejected the amendment application holding that the amendment will change the nature of suit and the amendment is not necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. Hence, the present petition.

5. Heard the rival submissions of learned advocate for the respective parties. admittedly, the Petitioner sought possession of the suit property from the respondent-tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement and on the ground of default of payment of rent and for recovery of rent. Since the respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in his written statement, the petitioner was required to file application seeking amendment. The petitioner is entitled to claim alternate relief in his plaint. In view of averments in the written statement, the amendment sought by the petitioner is necessitated.

6. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanswamy and Sons and Others ((2009) 10 SCC 84), it is held that 'the first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the court's discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment. The other important condition which should govern the discretion of the court is the potentiality of prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to the other side. Ordinarily, if the other side is compensated by costs, then there is no injustice but in practice hardly any court grants actual costs to the opposite side. Some basic principles which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment are: (i) whether the amendment sought is imperative for properly and effective adjudication of the case; (ii) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (iii) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (iv) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation (v) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (vi) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.'

7. In B.K. Narayana Pillai Vs. Parameswaran Pillai and another (2000) 1 SCC 712), it is held that ''the purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow th