JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J. - The petitioners are the opposite party nos.1 and 2 in Misc. Case No.118 of 2018. The misc. case arises out of an application for preemption. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated May 6, 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Uttar Dinajpur. By the order impugned, the learned judge rejected an application for amendment of the written objection filed by the petitioners. The learned court below rejected the application on the following grounds:-

a) As the facts had already been narrated in the written objection filed by the opposite parties, insertion of new facts by way of an amendment to clarify paragraph nos.6 and 8 of the written objection, was not necessary.

b) Trial had commenced and the amendment was belated.

c) The facts were within the knowledge of the opposite parties.

d) The factum of acquisition of titles, the chain deeds, the ownership of the property, etc. were well within the knowledge of the petitioners and the said facts should have been incorporated at the appropriate stage.

e) Finally, due diligence was not shown by the petitioners.

2. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of the petitioners and submits that when the foundation of the facts sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment had already been laid in the written objection, the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not come into operation. The paragraphs sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment were clarificatory in nature and an elaboration of the defence case which had already been stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the written objection.

3. Mr. Ghoshal, learned advocate for the preemptor in support of the order impugned, relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand reported in (2008) 5 SCC 117. According to Mr. Ghoshal, the Hon'ble Apex Court had time and again deprecated the practice of allowing belated amendments which were filed when trial had commenced. Unless due diligence was established by the party applying for such amendment, the learned courts, should be slow to allow belated amendments as the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been inserted in order debar parties from incorporating frivolous pleadings by way of amendment applications, only to delay the suit.

4. This Court deems it fit to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the liberal approach to be adopted by courts while considering amendment of written statements. In Revajeetu Builders and Develpers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84, Paragraph 26, of which is quoted below:-

"26. In the same judgment of Usha Balashaheb Swami [(2007) 5 SCC 602], the Court dealt with a number of judgments of this Court and laid down that the prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute the cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to the plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable."

5. The Apex Court in the case of Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others reported in AIR 2007 SC 2511 observed that delay was