The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of allowing amendments in pleadings when imperative for proper adjudication, filed bona fide, not causing prejudice to the other party, preventing injustice or multiple litigation, and not constitutionally or fundamentally changing the nature of the case.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final disposal with consent at the admission stage itself.

3. By way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 13/02/2020, passed by the First Appellate Court, thereby rejecting prayer for amendment of the written statement.

4. Mr. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the amendment which is sought is only clarificatory in nature. He submits that the petitioner/defendant No. 1 is illiterate pardanashin lady and therefore, she was unable to understand the pleadings in the written statement filed by her in the suit.

5. Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that suit was filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff for declaration and possession of the suit plot, wherein the petitioner/defendant No. 1 contested the matter. However, her specific defence raised regarding gift deed by which the suit property was gifted to her by the plaintiff, is not accepted only because there are no proper pleadings in the written statement with regard to the description of stamp, the date of execution of gift deed, etc. He would submit that such findings are found in Para-13 of the judgment of the Trial Court, which is challenged in an appeal filed before the District Court. He would further submit that even a challenge in the appeal is in connection with framing of issues improperly by the learned Trial Court.

6. Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in order to do complete justice to the parties, it is necessary to amend the written statement, as the proposed amendment is not going to change the nature of the suit or the defence as well as will not in any manner cause prejudice to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. He submits that such proposed amendment is necessary only to incorporate the details of the gift deed.

7. Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the case of Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited vs. Manohar Lal, (2017) 5 SCC 212, would submit that earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, principles in para-63 of the said decision were laid down while considering the amendment application. He submits that the amendment proposed is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case and that such amendment is bona fide filed. Similarly, such amendment would not cause prejudice to the other side, which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. He would further submit that refusing such amendment would certainly lead to injustice to the petitioner.

8. Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance in the case of Egidio Braganza and Another vs. Lino Agnelo Fernandes and Others, 2016 SCC Online Bom. 3962, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that when the nature of amendment is relevant for clarifying the matter in respect of which foundation is laid in the written statement, must receive more liberal consideration.

9. Per contra, Mr. Tejas Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/original plaintiff, would submit that the amendment is filed only to fill up the lacunae and to counter the findings of the learned Trial Court, which cannot be permitted at a belated stage. He would submit that the petitioner/defendant No. 1 in her written statement nowhere claimed such details when in fact such details were known to her. There are no specific reasons disclosed as to why such details were not incorporated in the original written statement. He would therefore submit that reasons given in the amendment application are not genuine and thus rejection of such amendment cannot be interfered.

10. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff, while relying upon the decision in the case of Shivshankara and An