Parties should be free to frame their pleadings without undue interference from the court, and every amendment, however belated, should be allowed if the opposite party can be adequately compensated through costs.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against an order dated September 29,1993 passed by the learned Sub Judge whereby he rejected an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the plaintiff/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for the sake of convenience ). The petitioner through the proposed amenment wanted to plead that the defendant/respondent ( hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of brevity) has got no right to block the passage. He further wanted to explain through the amendment sought that he has got an un-interrupted right by way of easement to the light, Sun and the air. In case the respondent succeeds in raising the construction then he would be deprived of the light, Sun and the air. The petitioner further wanted to allege that the proposed construction is in violation of the bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

( 2 ) THE respondent opposed the said application on the ground that the petitionerthrough the proposed amendments wanted to introduce a new case and wanted to raise new pleas which were contradictory to and inconsistent with the pleas already raised by him. It has further been contended for and on behalf of the respondent that the proposed amendments are un-necessary and irrelevant and hence are liable to be rejected.

( 3 ) THE learned lower court after hearing the parties was of the view that the amendments sought were un-necessary, irrelevant and immaterial as the petitioner had already raised the same in his plaint. The learned Sub Judge was further of the view that the petitioner wanted to introduce a new plea with regard to the easement which was never pleaded earlier. He is thus debarred from doing so. In view of the above the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED and dis-satisfied with the said order the petitioner has approached this Court.

( 5 ) IT is a well settled principle of law that the parties should be left free to fight out their cases in their own way. There should be minimum possible interference from the side of the Court. Thus the parties can frame their pleadings in their own way, without any let or hindrance from any side, whatsoever.

( 6 ) I have very carefully examined the proposed amendments. The petitioner has already stated in his plaint that in case the respondent is allowed to raise the construction it will obstruct the light, Sun and the air to the portion of his premises. Now, he simply wants to explain the same by adding in his pleadings that he is claiming the said right to the light, air and the Sun by way of easement. Thus the proposed amendment, I feel, is byway of a clarification. It can at the most be called an explanatory pleading. I have also very carefully examined the proposed amendment, yet I fail to understand as to how it is inconsistent with and contradictory to the pleas already raised by the petitioner.

( 7 ) THE petitioner through the proposed amendment wants to allege that the impugned passage is the common passage and as such the petitioner has got an un-interrupted right to use the same and the respondent cannot be allowed to create any obstruction in the said passage.

( 8 ) THE next point the petitioner wants to raise is that the alleged agreement set up by the respondent is illegal and invalid and unenforceable.

( 9 ) THE said pleas are neither belated nor inconsistent with the pleadings as even the issues have not yet been framed in the suit. Thus the amendment application was moved at the earliest possible stage.

( 10 ) FURTHERMORE, it is a well recognised principle of Civil Jurisprudence that every amendment howsoever belated should be allowed in case the opposite party can be adequately compensated through costs. I feel that the opposite party can be adequately compensated by awarding costs to her for the inconvenience caused to the respondent through the presentation of the present application.

( 11