An amendment should be allowed if it is imperative for proper adjudication and does not fundamentally change the nature of the case.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.

2. The plaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants permanently injuncting the defendants, their agents, representatives, assignees acting for and on their behalf directly or indirectly interfering with or obstructing the exclusive possession of the plaintiff over the suit property described in Schedule "A" to the plaint.

(ii) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants particularly defendant No. 6 to remove himself and any of his agents, servants representatives, assignees acting for and on his behalf from the suit property described in Schedule "A" to the plaint.

(iii) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to collect the original title documents to the suit property from the Registry of this Hon’ble Court as the same is deposited in Suit 1077 of 2000 or alternatively, direct the defendant No. 6 and/or all defendants to hand over the title documents to the suit property described in Schedule "A" to the plaint.

3. The plaint has a chequered history. The suit first came up for hearing on 11.01.2012. On that date itself the Court noted that unnecessary averments have been made in the present suit giving the entire history of some sequence of facts which appears to be totally immaterial and irrelevant to determine the controversy involved between the parties. The Court directed that the irrelevant averments be struck off by the plaintiff and amended plaint be filed within a period of one week.

4. On 05.03.2012 the defendant filed I.A. No. 4277 of 2012 pointing out that instead of striking off the irrelevant averments in the plaint, the plaintiff has in fact changed the nature of the suit itself as well as the prayer para itself. A direction was passed against the plaintiff to carry out the directions as contained in order dated 11.01.2012 failing which exemplary cost shall be imposed upon the plaintiff.

5. On 22.07.2013 while dealing with I.A. Nos. 4277 of 2012 and 4278 of 2012 filed by the defendants, this Court noted that certain changes have been done by the plaintiff in the amended plaint which are not in the initial plaint like the relief of redemption has been added by the plaintiff in the amended plaint. The amended plaint was directed to be taken off the record and the plaintiff was permitted to take appropriate steps with regard to the original plaint and ensure that all the irrelevant averments as intended by order dated 11.01.2012 do not form part of amended plaint. The two applications were disposed of.

6. On 28.07.2014 this Court noted that the amended plant is still not on record and subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 2 lakhs granted two week’s time to the plaintiff to file the amended plaint. Against the said order dated 28.07.2014 the plaintiff filed FAO (OS) 366 of 2014. The same was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 13.08.2014. The Division Bench however noted that in a useless and prolix pleadings it took the plaintiff 57 paragraphs to plead a simple case, namely that the plaintiff was to simply seek redemption of the mortgage. Yet the Division Bench noted that all and sundry averments unconnected with the real issue were pleaded.

7. Coming now to the application for amendment which has been filed earlier. By the present application the plaintiff submits that in the amended plaint filed, the relief of redemption has been added but seeks formal order for allowing the said amendment on record.

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has urged that the Division Bench in its order dated 13.08.2014 has already held that the plaintiff was to simply seek redemption of the mortgage and that is the only prayer which is sought to be added in the plaint.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant has strongly argued that the present application is not