The court emphasized the importance of allowing amendments to pleadings when necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and when no prejudice would be caused to the adverse party.

ORDER

Petitioner has filed the instant application, i.e., CM No. 1961/2020, seeking leave of this Court to amend the writ petition. Before coming to the instant application, let me give a brief background of the facts, leading to filing of the instant application.

2. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition, challenging the action of the respondent No.1 whereby the said respondent issued a communication dated 08.06.2019 thereby removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman cum CEO of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2-Bank. Petitioner further sought a direction for his reinstatement as Chairman cum CEO of respondent No. 2-Bank and for release of monthly salary along with perquisites in his favour. According to the petitioner, the impugned action of the respondents is non-est in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the impugned notice is wholly arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions contained in the Banking Regulations Act and the Articles of Association of the respondent No. 2-Bank. Petitioner has further challenged the action of the respondents on certain other grounds.

3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and the respondent No. 2-Bank submitted preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, whereas the other respondents are yet to file their response. During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears that the vide Notifications dated 27.03.2020 and 24.04.2020 followed by the communications bearing Nos. FD/Bkg/12/2020 dated 15.05.2020 and JKB/BS/F3652/2020/024 dated 17.05.2020, the respondents initiated and undertook the process of making appointment of one-Mr. Zubair Iqbal as Managing Director, which post seems to have been created after affecting the amendments to Articles 69 (I) and 71 of the Articles of Association of the respondent No. 2-Bank in the Annual General Meeting dated 26.09.2019. After this development, petitioner filed an application, seeking a direction for staying the selection process being undertaken by the respondent No. 2-Bank for appointment against the advertised post of Managing Director with a further direction to stay the Notification dated 15.05.2020, whereby the respondent No. 2 nominated Mr. Zubair Iqbal as Nominee Director of respondent No. 1.

4. During the course of hearing of the above application, Mr. Zubair Iqbal filed an application (CM No.78A/2020) seeking his impleadment as party to the writ petition. The said application was allowed vide order dated 29.05.2020 and accordingly, Mr. Zubair Iqbal was impleaded as party respondent No. 4 to the present proceedings.

5. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has made an application, seeking leave of this Court to amend the writ petition. Through the medium of this application, petitioner seeks to amend the cause title of the writ petition and to include the averments with regard to the developments which alleged to have taken place after filing of the instant writ petition, that led to the creation of post of the Managing Director and subsequent appointment of respondent No. 5 to the said post. Petitioner further seeks to urge the legal grounds to throw challenge to these actions of the respondents and to include the prayers for declaring the process as well as appointment of the respondent No. 5 to the post of Managing Director, as non-est in the eyes of the law with a further direction to the respondents not to carry into the effect the aforesaid process/appointment of respondent No. 5.

6. The non-applicants have vehemently opposed the application by filing their objections thereto, wherein it has been contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as such, the amendment cannot be allowed. It has been contended that there is lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner, as he has suppressed the material facts, which were within his knowledge. It is also contended that by way of amendment, the petitioner is seeking to introduce a new case, which cannot be