Honble CHATTERJEE, J.–Leave granted.

(2). An order rejecting an application for amendment of a written statement passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahar, Punjab and Haryana and affirmed by a learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is now under challenge before this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India filed at the instance of the defendants/appellants excepting the respondent No. 2 herein.

(3). A suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 (Manohar Singh) for a declaration that he is the owner and in possession of 40 Kanals and 15 Merlas comprised in Kh. No. 16(8- 0), 17(8-0), 19(8-0), 20/1(7-4), 25/1(1-11) of rect No. 19 of Khewat No. 212 Khatauni No. 263 as fully described to the schedule of the plaint. (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property").

(4). The case set up by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was that the sale deeds executed on 24.6.1968 and 25.6.1968 in the names of his parents were benami transactions and the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was the real owner of the same as his parents had no money to pay the consideration money of the suit property and that the sale deeds were executed pursuant to an oral agreement to sell which was entered into only by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The appellants entered appearance and filed their written statement, inter alia, denying that there was any agreement to sell the suit property or that the suit property was owned and possessed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that the defendant No. 1/appellant No. 1 is the actual owner and in possession of the suit property because he was residing in India continuously in village Bhin without any interruption from any one whereas the plaintiff is residing permanently in Canada. During the pendency of the suit, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the appellants seeking its amendment in which it was alleged that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had no money to pay the sale price of the suit property, and that the father of the parties, who was serving as a Foreman in the Central Government and their mother had sufficient income to pay the sale price of the suit property and on the death of their parents the names of the plaintiff and the defendants have been mutuated in equal shares in respect of the suit property. Accordingly, the defendants/appellants sought for amendment of the written statement in the manner indicated herein earlier. It was further pleaded in the application for amendment of the written statement that the amendment sought for was in fact an elaboration of the case made out in the written trial court rejected the application for amendment of the written statement.

(5). Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement, this Special Leave Petition has been filed which, on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

(6). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail on the question whether the amendment sought for in the written statement, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, ought to have been allowed or not.

(7). Before we take up this question for our decision, we must consider some of the principles to be governed for allowing an amendment of the pleadings.

(8). It is well settled by various decisions of this Court as well as the High Courts in India that Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of the Privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya vs. Maung Mo Hnaung (AIR 1922 PC 249) in which the Privy Council observed:

"All rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of j

Click Here to Read the rest of this document