1. The present application is filed on behalf of the defendants praying inter alia for amendment of the written statement by incorporating the paras as indicated in paras 7 and 8 of the application.

2. Counsel for the defendants submits that the present suit instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of lease and for declaration, pertains to flat bearing Flat No.614, 6th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, of which the defendants are the landlords. He submits that the suit is based on an unregistered lease deed dated 24.4.2003 and the plaintiff was a tenant on a month to month basis in the suit property. The defendants, vide legal notice dated 10.1.2008 terminated the tenancy of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and instituted a suit in the District Court for possession, mesne profit, damages, etc., i.e., Civil Suit No.54/2008 entitled Mr. Ghanshyam Das Agarwal and Anr. vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., which is pending disposal. He further submits that the aforesaid events are subsequent to the filing of the written statement in the present proceeding and are sought to be brought on the record by way of the proposed amendments.

.3. It is pertinent to note that the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff in March, 2007 and the same was registered on 4.4.2007, when summons were issued to the defendants. The defendants entered appearance on 16.11.2007 and sought time to file the written statement. The written statement came to be filed on 01.01.2008. The plaintiff was required to file a replication to the written statement within four weeks from the date of filing of the written statement, which was not done till May, 2008. In the meantime, the defendants filed the present application on 12.5.2008, praying inter alia for amendment to the written statement. In other words, the suit is at the initial stage, as the pleadings have yet to be completed. Counsel for the defendants states that by way of the proposed amendment, he only seeks to bring on record the subsequent events that have occurred after filing of the written statement and the same shall not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff as even pleadings are not complete in the suit.

4. The present application is opposed by the counsel for the plaintiff. He states that the facts which the defendants propose to incorporate by way of amendment, were partly available to them at the time of filing the original written statement as the defendants had instituted a suit earlier to the one instituted now and pending in the trial court for the same relief, which was withdrawn by them and which fact was not mentioned by the defendants in their original written statement. He further states that the proposed amendments are not relevant for deciding the real controversy between the parties, and therefore, are not liable to be permitted.

5. A perusal of the provision of Order VI Rule 17 CPC make it manifest that the Court is conferred with the power to allow alterations and amendments of the pleadings if the Court is of the view that such amendments may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties at any stage of the proceedings. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC stipulates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the present case, proviso to Rule 17 CPC has no application as trial of the suit has not yet commenced. Rather, pleadings have not been completed.

6. It is trite that the Court should be liberal in granting prayer for amendment of the pleadings, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer made in the amendment application is malafide. One of the basis for rejecting an amendment of the pleadings is that the amen