The main legal point established is that the amendment of pleadings at the appellate stage should be justified by the necessity for determining the controversy between the parties, and any delay in making the application for amendment should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court.

1. This appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated November 14, 1983, where-by the amendment of the written statement was allowed and on that account, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the case was remanded for fresh decision.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated June 5, 1978. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court on February 4, 1983. In the appeal filed on behalf of the defendant, he also moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil P. C., for amendment of the written statement. By virtue of the proposed amendment, the defendant wanted to take the plea that he was a member of the coparcenary and joint Hindu family constituted of him and his sons and, therefore, no decree for specific performance of the agreement could be passed against him. That application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff. However, the lower appellate Court allowed the said application on payment of costs. According to the lower appellate Court, the proposed amendment was only an additional, approach to the defence of the defendant i.e. the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was not executable and that the amendment of the pleadings could be allowed at any stage and, therefore, on that ground, it allowed the amendment of the written statement. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal in this Court.

3. The, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the. defendant had taken all, possible pleas in his Written statement inasmuch, as he even denied the execution of the agreement and also pleaded that it was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The learned counsel further agreed that when the defendant failed to substantiate his pleas in the trial Court, he moved the application for amendment of the written statement in appeal, with a mala fide intention to re-open the whole matter again. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent contended that the amendment, could be allowed at any stage and, therefore, there was nothing wrong if the amendment was allowed by the lower appellate Court. According to the learned counsel, the plea if allowed, will non-suit the plaintiff.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am, of the considered opinion that no amendment sought for lay the defendant could be allowed by the lower, appellate Court. No one is entitled to seek amendment of the pleadings as a matter of right; particularly in appeal. The argument that an amendment could be allowed at any stage and that the prayer to that effect could not be declined on the ground that the application made in that behalf was a delayed one does not mean that the parties to the proceedings are entitled to seek amendment of the pleadings at any stage as a matter of right. It only means that if the Court finds that the proposed amendment is necessary, for the determination of the controversy between the parties, the amendment may be allowed even at a late stage. Here again the jurisdiction of the appellate Court is further limited because after the passing of the decree by the trial Court, the rights of the parties come into being and then a very strong Case is to be made out why the pleas sought to be taken by way of amendment could not be taken earlier. In that situation, the delay in making the application in this regard, has also, to be explained to the satisfaction of the Court. It is at that stage, if the Court is satisfied, that the Court may allow the amendment in a given case. As regards the facts of the present case, the conduct of the defendant speaks for itself. All the possible pleas were taken by him in the written statement before the trial Court. The plea now sought to be taken by way amendment in the written statement was very much available to him at the a stage. There is absolutely no explan