A legal representative cannot introduce a new case altogether, must meet the pleas raised in the plaint, and cannot raise a plea not open to the deceased.

1. This application under O. 6, R. 17 read with S. 151 of the Civil Pro­cedure Code (shortly called the Code) has been filed by the appellant for am­endment of the written statement.

2. One Bhuria had two sons, Mansha Ram and Mohru. The latter had one son Ganeshu and a daughter Smt. Niki, the plaintiff-respondent. The former had one son Mathu. On the death of Ganeshu, his widow succeeded him, who is said to have made a will of her property on 26-9-1965 in favour of Mathu. She died in July, 1966, and the will is stated to have been registered on 21-8-1966. Muta­tion on the basis of the will in favour of Mathu was attested on 27-6-67. Smt. Niki filed a suit for cancellation of the will on the ground that the will was forged and that she was the only legal heir to succeed to the property of Smt. Sewati who was her brothers widow. The suit was dismissed on 22-8-1973. She filed an appeal before the District Judge. During the pendency of the ap­peal, Mathu died without issues and a wife. The present appellant-petitioner was brought on the record as the legal representative because he was an intermeddler. The District Judge accepted the appeal of Smt. Niki on 26-2-1976. Muni Lal, therefore, filed the present appeal on 1-4-1976, and, on April 2, 1976 he obtain­ed an order that he shall not be dispos­sessed from the land. On 5-8-1976 the stay order was confirmed and it was ordered that the case shall be listed for early hearing. Thereafter the appellant filed this C. M. P. No. 1676/1976 on 22-9-1976 for amendment of the written state­ment, whereby he wanted to insert two pleas in the written statement which are as under: (1) That the appellant being the tenant of the land in dispute under the previous owners from whom the plaintiff is deriv­ing her title and also under Mathu and Sewati, the suit for possession is not triable by the Honble Court and the appellant cannot be dispossessed from the land in dispute except in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pra­desh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. (2) That the respondent having not reserved the area in dispute in accordance with law before the appointed day, he has become the owner of the land auto­matically in accordance with the provi­sions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, as amended. Hence also the suit merits dismissal. 2-A. It had been averred that these pleas had arisen to the appellant after the filing of the written statement and could not be legally taken earlier. The allowing of the said pleas is essential for determining the real controversy be­tween the parties. It would shorten the litigation and will not change the nature of the case or the defence and that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced in any manner either.

3. This application is opposed by the respondent on the ground that the appli­cant-legal representative cannot make out a new and a personal case and he has to contest the case only on the basis of the written statement filed by Mathu. The application is based on mala fides. Dur­ing the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate court, Muni Lal contest­ed the appeal on the same pleadings filed by Mathu without any objection and after the acceptance of the appeal by the learned lower appellate court, Muni Lal while filing the present Regular Se­cond Appeal did not contend for filing the amended written statement. The ap­plication has been filed with an ulterior motive to delay the disposal of the appeal. 3-A. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment to the written statement can be permitted at any stage and that delay is no ground for disallow­ing an application for amendment. There can be no denying the fact that an am­endment can be permitted even at the appellate stage provided the amendment does not raise any inconsistent plea or a different cause of action. The learned counsel has cited a large number of case law on the point.

4. The first authority is Pathikonda Gopala