The court emphasized the wide power to allow amendments to pleadings in the interests of justice, and the need for a liberal approach in granting amendments, provided they are necessary for the determination of the real controversies in the suit and do not cause prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. This revision is directed against order dated 30.8.1993 passed by Rent Controller, Hansi partly declining the prayer of the petitioners for amendment by way of insertion of words "alleged to be" in the first line of paragraph 3 and second line of paragraph 6 of the ejectment application.

2. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners filed an application for ejectment of the non-petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground of making material alteration in the demised premises. During the pendency of the ejectment application, they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) for grant of leave to incorporate the following amendment:-

"a) In para No.3 of the ejectment application at page 4 (Internal) in first line the name of the firm be corrected as M/s Bhagat Ram Narain in place of Ram Narain Bhagat Ram.

b) In para No.3 of the ejectment application in first line before the word transfer and after the word Bhagat Ram, the word alleged to be ordered to be incorporated.

c) That in the 11th line of this paragraph firm M/s Bhagat Ram Narain be inducted in place of M/s Radha Krishan Siri Niwas.

d) In para 6 at page 5 in second line after the word were and before the word transferred the word alleged to be ordered to be added."

3. The petitioners claimed that the proposed amendment is necessary for determination of the real controversy between the parties and the same would not cause any prejudice to the non-petitioners because the proceedings were at the initial stage.

4. The non-petitioners contested the application for amendment and prayed for its dismissal by asserting that the petitioners should not be allowed to wriggle out of the admission made in the matter of transfer of the demised premises in favour of firm Radha Krishan Sri Niwas by their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Bhagat Ram Ram Narain.

5. The learned Rent Controller partly accepted the petitioners prayer in so far as it related to the correction in the description of the name of the firm was concerned, but rejected their prayer for incorporation of the words "alleged to be" in paragraphs 3 and 6 of the ejectment application by assigning the following reasons:-

"After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find no force in the contention of petitioners learned counsel. It is prominent to mention that it is not the petitioners case that they had made a wrong admission in their petition. They rather pleaded that the amendment is only to rectify a clerical mistake, whether or not it was a clerical mistake becomes clear from some documents which the respondents have placed on record. The respondents have produced a registered notice dated 1.1.1973 which petitioners predecessor-in-interest Lala Uggar Sain had served on respondent No.l to pay him the amount of loss and damages caused to the demised premises. Lala Uggar Sain in this notice has clearly stated that M/s. Bhagat Ram Ran Narain had transferred his rights and liabilities under the lease to respondent No.l. There is then another document wherein the same admission has been recorded. This is the execution petition No.378 decided on 4.2.1937. The respondents produced copy of this petition and its perusal reveals that Lala Uggar Sain therein has also admitted that M/s Bhagat Ram Ram Narain had transferred its rights in the lease in favour of respondent No.l i.e. firm M/s. Radha Krishan Siri Niwas. Evidently, the petitioners therefore through the proposed amendment intend to upset admission which has gone on record in the previous litigation between the parties. The admission in the original petition was therefore not a clerical mistake but was in fact an admission which petitioners predecessor-in-interest himself had made and is binding on the petitioners as well. Thus viewed, the amendment, if allowed, would not only negative the petitioners admission already made in the their petition but will