The power to allow amendment of pleadings must be exercised with due circumspection and based on sound judicial discretion. Procedural laws must be followed to ensure expeditious disposal of cases.

Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 1-8-2003, whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as "the defendants", for amendment of their written statement.

2. With a view to properly understand and appreciate the controversy involved in this revision, case set up by the parties, out of which this revision has arisen, and on which, learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing, need to be briefly noted. These are :—

3. That a suit was filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" on the basis of title qua the land as detailed in the plaint against the defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from, in any manner, interfering with his possession and ownership. This suit was filed on 19-9-1995. Written statement was filed on 29-9-1995. Issues were framed on 7-4-2000 by the trial Court. This suit is being contested and resisted by the defendants. They have claimed passage, but from which particular parcel of land and where it exists and whether it is over the land in suit belonging to the plaintiff, there was no averment in the written statement. Another fact that needs to be noted here is, that the defendants have not disputed the title of the plaintiff to the suit land. Plaintiff concluded his evidence. Thereafter, it was listed for the first time for evidence of the defendants on 3-1-2003. No steps had admittedly been taken by the defendants by either filing list of witness and/or by depositing the process fee as well as road and diet money of the witnesses intended to be summoned by them.

4. Learned Counsel for the parties were further not at variance that the trial Court from 3-1-2003 adjourned the case to 27-3-2003. Then it was adjourned to 8-5-2003. It was also adjourned to 3-7-2003, subject to costs of Rs. 200/-. This was the last opportunity to the defendants for producing evidence. Again it was adjourned to 1-9-2003 as last opportunity. It was also again adjourned to 10-11-2003. Again, this was the last opportunity allowed to lead evidence by the defendants, subject to costs of Rs. 500.

5. When the case was listed on 3-7-2003, application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CRC. was filed, wherein amendment was proposed to be carried out in the written statement by the defendants claiming passage over a part of the suit land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Plea claiming passage over part of plaintiffs land by way of prescription was also intended to be set up by amending the written statement. Plaintiff contested this application on the ground that no amendment was necessary and the application was not bona fide. It will change the nature of the defence. Number of other pleas were also set up while opposing this amendment application of the defendants.

6. Trial Court by means of the impugned order, has dismissed the application.

7. What is stated in the application seeking amendment of the written statement is being extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:— "That the plaintiff/non -applicant has filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants /respondents, from interfering in the land, as entered against Khata Khatuni No. 41/69, Khasra Nos. 445, 448, 449, 489, 492, 493, 495, 496, 497 and Khata Khatuni No. 41/70, Khasra No. 494, Khata 10, total measuring 219-43 Square Metres, situated at Mauja Tutikandi, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. The defendants/applicants have denied the allegations, as levelled by the plaintiff in the plaint and it that there exists a passage which links to the houses of the applicants through the land owned by the non-applicant and the said passage is in existence much prior to the year 1954 and the sane is being used as passage by the applicants. The applicants inadvertently despite their due diligence have