The main legal principle established in the judgment is that rules of procedure are intended to facilitate substantive justice, and amendments to pleadings should be allowed unless they cause injustice to the other party.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This revision petition is against the order of the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dated 16.12.1990 whereby application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint and for permission to lead additional evidence were allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs.

2. Briefly put the plaintiffs filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that documentary evidence has come to light on searching various revenue records which have a material bearing upon the point in controversy. This amendment, if allowed, would be helpful in determining the matter effectually.

3. The respondents contested both the applications on the ground that these have been filed just to delay the decision of the appeal and thus are liable to be rejected. The Additional District Judge on careful consideration of the respective contentions and following the dictum of the apex Court that rules of procedure are intended to be hand-made to the administration of justice; allowed both the applications.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has almost reiterated the points which did not find favour with the lower appellate court.

5. Law with regard to the amendment of the pleadings is fairly liberal. The Apex Court in case Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, A. I. R. 1969 S. C. 1267, observed as under :-

"Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of Justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertance or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide. or that by this blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not-be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side."

6. Relying on this judgment, the apex Court in M/s Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, A. I R. 1978 S. C. 484, observed :-

-

"Procedural Law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the court of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation of particular causes of action must take."

7. Following the dictum of the Supreme Court, P. S. Pattar, J. in case Sardar Hari Bachan Singh v. Maj. Harbhajan Singh, (1975) 77 P. L. R. 21, observed as under :o-

"It is well settled law that however negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated for by costs. A plaintiff may add a new cause of action and the defendant may add a new defence. Even a new case may be allowed to be introduced. The court has to take into consideration even subsequent events. A further principle which is also usually considered is that as far as possible multiplicity of suits should be avoided Where, therefore, the plaintiff sought the permission merely to add a prayer for possession which did not alter the cause of action or change the essential nature of the suit, and the effect of the refusal of the amendment would have been to drive the plaintiff to a fresh suit, the amendment should be allowed."

The view of this court is consistent that however negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without any injustice to the other side and that there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs.

8. Examined in the light o