The Court applied a liberal approach in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners defendants challenging the order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in revision petition filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum- Assistant Collector, Beawar in case No. 98/2009 (31/2012) 'Ramchandra v. Pappu @ Hemant'.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment sought by the petitioners by way of moving an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC has been rejected without causing any prejudice and petitioners wanted to add certain paragraphs in their original written statement.

3. Counsel submitted that the averments which were required to be inserted by way of amendment in the written statement were in respect of an agreement dated 22.07.2010 wherein it was admitted that Khasra No.892 will be in the share of Rampal.

4. Counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue, Ajmer has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners only on account of bringing on record certain amendments in the year 2015 and averments relating to document came into existence in the year 2011 itself.

5. Counsel further submitted that the Board of Revenue, Ajmer has further considered the relevancy of the document-agreement and as such at the time of making amendment in the written statement, the relevancy of document could not be considered by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

6. Counsel further submitted that the amendments sought in the written statement did not change the nature of the suit as the respondents-plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration, correction of entries and permanent injunction.

7. Counsel submitted that the prayer made in the suit requires a proper defence by the petitioners-defendants and as such they were required to be permitted to make proper amendment by inserting the facts which were having direct bearing on the issues to be considered by the Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in rejecting the revision petition of the petitioners.

9. Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, further submitted that initially when the suit was filed in the year 2009, the written statement was filed in the year 2010 and thereafter the amended written statement was again filed by the petitioner on 24.02.2014.

10. Counsel for the respondents submitted that repeated amendments in the written statement is not permissible in law and parties cannot be permitted to change the stand.

11. Counsel further submitted that the documents which are alleged to be the basis of inserting new pleas in the written statement, were already in existence since 2010 and the amendment sought in the year 2015 was not bona fide amendment in the pleadings.

12. I have heard counsel for both the parties.

13. This Court finds that the suit filed in 2009, was amended by the plaintiff-respondents in the year 2014 itself and accordingly the petitioners were required to file amended written statement.

14. This Court finds that the amendments which are sought are not going to change nature of the suit and as such the amendment of pleading should not be denied only on account of altering or substituting the pleas which have already been taken in the written statement.

15. This Court finds that the Apex Court in case of Baldev Singh & Others v. Manohar Singh & Another reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498 has laid down parameters where Court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side.

16. This Court finds that the petitioners have moved the amendment application dated 7.12.2015 for making necessary amendment and as such it could be said that some serious injustice is caused to the other side.

17. Counsel for the respondents Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta though objected to the