Delay by itself is not a ground to refuse amendment of pleadings if it does not alter the nature of the action and is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties.

Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

Since 16.12.2009, a suit for seeking declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction filed by Smt. Kanta Devi and two of her daughters, petitioners herein, is pending adjudication before the lower court which is at the final stage of conclusion. An application was moved by the petitioner-plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC as also under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint as also impleadment of another party in the suit. Two sale deeds bearing No. 4483 and 4484 of 17.8.2007 are sought to be challenged by way of amendment in the plaint, whereas suit itself had been filed much later, i.e., on 16.12.2009 and the said sale deeds could have very well been challenged in the suit itself.

2. The suit is for seeking declaration. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and they aver that they have share in the land in suit and any alienation made by the defendants are null and void and are not binding against them. The two sale deeds sought to be challenged by way of amendment in the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC also pertain to the same land, is not a matter of dispute.

3. No notice is being issued to the respondents in order to obviate delay, more so when no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent in view of the nature of order which this Court proposes to pass.

4. Counsel for the petitioners, citing Raj Kumar v. Kamlesh Kumari, 2012(4) Law Herald 2986, has urged that for amendment of the plaint, delay by itself is not a ground for dismissal of the same. Observations of this Court in this judgment appearing in para 10 are noteworthy and are reproduced as below :-

"Case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had just started construction in the suit plot when the plaintiff filed the injunction suit for the said reason. However, since temporary injunction was not granted, the defendant raised construction in the suit plot during pendency of the suit. The defendant in her reply (Annexure P-2) has not even specifically pleaded that the construction referred to by the plaintiff in the amendment application had been raised before the filing of the suit, although the plaintiff specifically pleaded in the amendment application that the construction had been raised during pendency of the suit. At the same time, amendment application filed by the petitioner is highly belated. However, the amendment application could not be dismissed merely on the ground of delay, for which the plaintiff could be burdened with costs to compensate the defendant-respondent."

5. In Pargat Singh v. Ranjit Singh, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 555, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had also held that the amendment of pleadings should be allowed if no injustice is likely to be caused to the other party and the amendment is necessary for determination of the real controversy between the parties. Relevant observations made in this verdict are as under :-

"3. It is settled principle of law that amendment of the pleadings should be allowed if two conditions are satisfied, namely, (a) for not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Moreover, amendment of the pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings and a fresh suit on the amended claim would cause hardship to the parties and moreover after having gone through the proposed amendment, I find that amendment sought for by the plaintiff is not only necessary to do justice but also for deciding controversy between the parties. In the instant case, the evidence is yet to be examined by the plaintiff though the case is fixed for plaintiff's evidence many a times as is evident from the impugned order passed by the trial court.

4. Without further going into the merits of the case with regard to the proposed amendment, lest it might prejudice the rights of either of the parties, to my mind, the proposed amendment in order to decide co