Amendments to pleadings should not introduce a new cause of action or change the nature of the suit, and should be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.

( 1 ) THE order dated 10th July. 1998, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)Second Court. Mathura, in Original Suit No. 71 of 1992 has been challenged. By the said order, the revisionists application for amendment, which is Annexure-II to the said application has since been rejected. Mr. Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the revisionist contends that in view of the amendment that was allowed in the plaint as Is apparent from paragraph 1 of the amended plaint, Thakur Govind Dev Ji Maharaj has been described as the owner of the property to whom the plaintiffs are paying rent. Therefore, in order to prove their title, it has become necessary to implead Sebalt of Thakur Govind Dev Jl Maharaj, and. therefore, by means of amendment, it was sought to implead one Anjan Kumar Dev Goswami as party defendant to the proceeding with the added amendments to the extent that the said Anjan Kumar Dev Goswaml who is Sebait of Thakur Govind Dev Ji Maharaj had threatened the plaintiff of dispossession on 31st March. 1998 and that the cause of action had arose on 31st March. 1998. when the plaintiff was threatened of dispossession. Therefore, this amendment should have been allowed In order to determine the real question in issue. The same neither changes the nature of the suit nor introduces a new cause of action.

( 2 ) MR. V. K. Birla. learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand contends that there has been inordinate delay in preferring the amendment. Inasmuch as paragraph 1 of the plaint was amended in 1993. Whereas the application for amendment was made in 1998. He secondly contends that the plaintiffs are not allowing the suit to proceed and by virtue of such amendment, they are dragging on the suit. He further contends that the plaintiffs had filed amendment earlier, they could have incorporated the present amendment on earlier occasion as well.

( 3 ) 1 have heard both the learned counsel at length.

( 4 ) SO far as the question of delay is concerned as contended by Mr. V. K. Birla, does not seem to be sound proposition. Inasmuch as in the amendment application the cause of action was said to have arisen on 31st March, 1998. Therefore, the amendment could not have been asked for before 31st March, 1998. It is immaterial whether another amendment was allowed in 1993. There is no provision that once amendment is allowed, the subsequent amendment application would not be maintainable.

( 5 ) SO far as the conduct is concerned, that is also immaterial. Whether it will delay the process or not has nothing to do with the question of amendment. The principle that has to be considered while dealing with the application for amendment is not the question of conduct of the parties. On the other hand, it has to be seen whether the amendment changes the nature and character of the suit property and brings about the multtfarlousness or it Introduces a new cause of action or there is any misjoinder of cause of action or not.

( 6 ) IN Bhuramal v. Samla Dallurband, 82 Col WN 1 and Monika v. Blsunbikash, AIR 1986 Col 113, it was held that by way of amendment, a new case or new cause of action cannot be allowed to be set up. Nor any party can be allowed to convert his claim into one of different character. In kumarswamy v. V. D. Najappa. AIR 1978 Mad 285 (FB), it was held that where the amendment sought for sets up a totally different cause of action which ex facie cannot stand on a line with the original pleading, amendment is to be refused. A pleading can only be amended to substantiate, elucidate, expand the pre-existing facts contained in the original pleading.

( 7 ) UNDER Order VI. Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure such amendments are permissible "as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. " Therefore. In order to allow an amendment, the Court has to consider whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real question at issue. It ca