The court has the power to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on just terms, including amendments to include new prayers for relief.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose or three applications (I. As. 2805/76, 2538/77 and 200/78) made by the plaintiff under O. 6, R. 17 and S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for the amendment of his plaint.

( 2 ) THE suit, No. 445 of 1976, plaint whereof is sought to be amended was instituted by Sardar Darshan Singh Kochhar as stated by way of its heading for rendition of accounts declaration and permanent injunction . The prayer clause, numbered as para 19, reads as follows:

"19. The Hon ble Court be pleased to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the following effect: (a) The accounts of the firm M/s. B. Dadabhoy be taken from 1-7-67 till 30-6-76 and the defendant No. 1 be called upon to render the same, and whatever is found due to the plaintiff from any of the defendants be decreed against and made recoverable from him and should it be necessary to dissolve the liquor business of the firm, this may also be done. (b) A perpetual injunction be issued against the defendant No. 1, restraining him from using or carrying on any business in shop No. 206, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and the two godowns, situated in Gali Qasim Jan and Gali Kupe Wali in Ballimaran, Delhi which were being used hitherto by M/s. B. Dadabhoy for its business to the exclusion of the plaintiff or for any purpose other than that of the firm. (c) A perpetual Injunction be issued against the defendant No. 1 restraining him for drawing upon or using the funds of the firm for his own purposes or purposes other than those of the firm and also a similar injunction be issued regarding the liquor stocks. (d) It be declared that the entire furniture, fixtures and other articles of which list is annexed hereto are the property of the firm and the defendant No. 1, as such, does not own them. "

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed his first application (I. A. No. 2805) for amendment on 8-12-1976 and craved the permission of the Court to introduce changes in his pleadings at different places but it is agreed between the parties that the one really important point is that of relief, On this subject it was submitted that the words and should it be necessary. . . . . . . . . . . . be done appearing in cl. (a) at page 12 of the plaint (i. e. paragraph 19 reproduced above) be deleted and the following words be substituted in their place:

"the defendants be made to account for profits on account of the subsequent user of the assets of the erstwhile firm M/s. B. Dadabhoy, as well, and otherwise compensate the plaintiff for the same. "the plaintiff wanted to tinker with cls. (b) and (c) of para. 19 of the plaint too, but those changes again are conceded by the parties, to be of little significance and need not be dwelt upon. After a reply to this application was filed by the defendants the plaintiff realised that the application aforesaid suffered from certain errors and he made his second application (I. A. 2538) dated 26-7-77 (filed on 1-8-1977) to remedy the same. This application was accompanied by a list of the desired amendments and the same were comprised in nine paras. Significantly, however, no alteration was asked for in the prayer clause beyond that for which a request had been made in I. A. 2805 referred to above. On 12-12-1977 Darshan Singh Kochhar got prepared his third application (I. A. 200/ 78) for amendment. It was stated in this application inter alia that the following words be allowed to be added in para 21 (a) of the amended plaint:

"the partnership be dissolved as at 1-7-76 and".

( 4 ) ALL the three applications aforesaid have been opposed by the defendants as mala fide and the omissions made by the plaintiff at the beginning are stated to be intentional.

( 5 ) THE parties are partners of the firm, Messrs. B. Dadabhoy, and as the original plaint would show without a shadow of doubt, all what the plaintiff wanted in the first instance was that the firm aforesaid should continue functioning, that defendant No. 1 be called upon to render ac