Hima Kohli, J.

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint.

2. The plaintiff/applicant has filed the present suit against the defendants claiming damages to the tune of Rs. One Crore on account of defamation. Notice was issued in the suit on 17.11.2006. During the pendency of the suit, a previous application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiff/applicant, which was however dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.2.2007, with liberty granted to the plaintiff/applicant to file an appropriate application in accordance with law. In the meantime, the defendants filed their written statement on 8.3.2007. Thereafter the present application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC came to be filed by the plaintiff/applicant on 28.3.2007.

3. By way of amendment, the plaintiff/ applicant wishes to amend the cause title of the suit from "A suit for damages on account of defamation for Rupees one crore" to "Amended suit for damages on account of defamation, breach of confidence and privacy and deceit for Rupees one crore", besides adding three paragraphs, being paragraphs No. AA, 6A and 25A to the plaint.

4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant submitted that no additional facts are sought to be added to the plaint by way of the proposed amendment, and that it was already stated in paragraph 6 of the original plaint that the defendant No. 5 had misrepresented to the plaintiff and made her believe that the article to be published in the magazine "Outlook", owned by defendant No. 1 would be related to fashion and large size women and thus the plaintiff allowed herself to be photographed for a cover feature in March, 2006. It was further contended that the amendments being sought in the original plaint only amplify the stand already taken by the plaintiff and specifically state the rights being breached, on the basis of which she claims entitlement to damages. Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant submitted that the said amendments are necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties, and that even if the amendments sought are allowed, the nature of the suit would remain the same. In support of her submissions, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant relied on the following judgments:

i. A.K. Gupta and Sons v. Damodar Valley Corporation [1966] 1 SCR 796

ii. B.K.N. Narayana Pillai v. P.Pillai and Anr. AIR 2000 SC 614

iii. Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3295

5. On the other hand, the present application for amendment of the plaint was strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the defendants, who submitted that by way of the present application, the plaintiff/applicant is seeking to introduce pleas which are destructive of/inconsistent with the stand taken by her earlier. Counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff had changed her stand on material facts in the plaint and is seeking to resile from the material admissions made by her in favor of the defendants in the earlier plaint. He pointed out that by way of the present application, the plaintiff/applicant also seeks to change the

nature of the suit itself and to include within its ambit other heads of relief, namely, breach of confidence, breach of privacy and deceit, which were not a part of the original plaint. It was urged that the plaintiff has not furnished any reasons for seeking the amendments and by trying to do so, she is attempting to widen the scope of defendants alleged liability, which he submitted, ought not to be allowed by this Court.

6. The second limb of the arguments advanced on behalf of the defendants is that the present application is belated, inasmuch as the same has been filed only on 28.3.2007, long after the defendants filed their written statement to the original plaint, i.e. on 8.3.2007. It was stated that since the defendants have alrea