M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioner seeking amendment of its written statement by adding para 6(A). The Civil Judge while dismissing the application has recorded the following reasons :

"After hearing both the counsel and perusing the case file the considered opinion of mine is that no doubt in respect of law of amendment of court should have a liberal approach and howsoever negligent omission shall be taken in consideration as has already been pressed upon by counsel for the plaintiff but at the same time it is also the settled law that among all, one of the purposes and objects of allowing amendment of the plaint is to avoid multiplicity of cases and, therefore, the amendment should be allowed in such a case where refusal of same would have been to drive the plaintiff to file a fresh suit which is not the situation of the present case. Further the court has discretion to allow an amendment of course the discretion has to be used in a judicial manner and the considerations while acting judicially which normally weigh with the court are whether the amendment can be allowed without working injustice to the other side. I draw my support for this contention from 1973 (75) PLR 323 and also from AIR 1967 Patna 386. Further all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Secondly, raising new pleas in lieu thereof setting up a shield to the parties claim cannot be allowed by way of amendment. Thus the proposed amendment is not a mere change in the working of the plaintiff for the introduction of fresh details but is the one which pretends to shield the plaintiffs claim because in case the appeal against the decree in favour of deft. No. 1 is allowed then instead of giving relief of the plaintiff the present amendment appears to be the tool to be used to nullify the relief given to the plaintiff at the time if the said appeal is allowed. Amendment in the present case is of a different nature and though does not amount to alter the nature of the suit but still it will definitely cause injustice to the respondent at the time of discussing the merits of the suit and hence the application cannot be allowed to insert the protective shield to his claim by way of amendment. Moreover, though the plea of limitation is a immaterial for seeking an amendment as same can be allowed at that stage of proceeding even at the time of passing of the judgment but still lapse of time should be considered while deciding the matter judiciously and in the present case as it is apparent that the amendment as proposed today could initially be inserted in the pleadings at the time of application of LRs long back 1995 itself. The same has not been inserted till date and a period of almost 6 years, no doubt creates a lacuna as to consider the negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel to insert such a document which is quite significant to prove their case. Thus, though howsoever negligent omission may be allowed but the same cannot be allowed, after howsoever many years I draw my support from 1997(32) RCR Civil (sic) which says amendment if any has to be made within limitation."

2. Brief facts which lead to the filing of the present revision petition may first be noticed. Bhulli had two sons Mohar Pal, defendant-petitioner and Chandan Singh. Chandan Singh died about 20 years ago and Smt. Sunehra, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is his widow and Murti Devi, plaintiff-respondent No. 2 is his daughter. On 10.8.1993, Bhulli allegedly suffered a decree in favour of Mohar Pal, defendant-petitioner on the basis of a family settlement. The afore-mentioned decree has been challenged by the widow and daughter of Chandan Singh, plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Suit No. 432 filed on 10.6.1994 on the gro