The court has the discretion to allow or reject an application for amendment of pleadings. The court should adopt a liberal approach in allowing amendments, but this principle is not applicable if the amendment is belated, seeks to introduce a new case, or causes prejudice to the other party.

( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 3-10-1992, passed in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1990 Sant Ram Agarwal v. Smt. Ram Dei and others. The petitioner had filed an application numbered as 27-A and sought amendment in the written statement, filed by him in suit No. 229 of 1987. The said application for amendment was rejected by the aforesaid order dated 3-10-1992.

( 2 ) IT may also be relevant to indicate that suit No. 29 of 1987 was decided by the learned Munsiff, South, Lucknow on the 26th of July, 1990. The application for amendment was moved at the time of the hearing of the appeal arising from the judgment in the said suit. By the said application for amendment 18 paragraphs were sought to be added to the written statement.

( 3 ) PRESENT opposite parties 2 to 4 had filed suit No. 29 of 1987 on the allegation that in the night intervening 24- 25/12/1986 the petitioner had blocked main door of premises No. 86/248 Ka Mohalla Kurmi Tola Lal Kunwan Lucknow and had covered the area measuring 13 x 12 situated in front of the aforesaid door into a room and has fixed exit door in it. The allegation further was that the petitioner took forcible possession over the land situate in front of the aforesaid door in illegal manner. On these facts opposite parties 2 to 4 prayed relief of mandatory injunction, directing the petitioner to demolish and to removed illegal construction made by him in front of the exit door of premises No. 86/248 Ka and further for a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner from making any encroachment for construction over the land situate in front of this exit door.

( 4 ) EARLIER the petritioner had filed suit No. 139 of 1982 in the Court of Munsif South Lucknow against Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o late Ram Prasad Yadav and Som Prakash Yadav s/o Badloo Ram Yadav praying relief for permanent injunction, restraining them from taking forcible possession over the premises No. 86/248 having old No. 110.

( 5 ) PRESENT opposite pasrties 2 and 3 are the widow and son of late Badloo Ram Yadav. By the amendments the petitioner sought to incorporate facts leading to the possession in suit No. 139 of 1982. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner who was plaintiff in the said suit by a judgment dated 28/01/1985.

( 6 ) THAT on behalf of the present opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 objections were filed to the application for amendment. It was pleaded in the said objection that the appellant/ defendants wanted to take a fresh defence which he could not take earlier before the lower Court and was not legally entitled to do same at a very belated stage. It was also pleaded that the appellant-defendants wanted to harass the respondent-Landlord by dragging them in an unnecessary litigation by the amendment sought which requires fresh trial and thus would not be permitted under law.

( 7 ) THE learned Civil Judge Mohanlal Ganj by an order dated 3-10-1992 rejected the said application for amendment on the ground that the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the written statement has no relation with the averments and relief claimed in suit No. 29 of 1987. The application was also rejected on the ground of being highly belated. It held that no explanation has been offered for the delay and the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not such as were not within the knowledge of the appellant, the present petitioner. It also held that there was no commonalty between the two suits.

( 8 ) A counter-affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 was filed in reply to the averments in the writ petition and the petitioner had filed the rejoinder-affidavit.

( 9 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3.

( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of several Supreme Court decisions as also of this Court that a liberal view with regard to permitting amendment should