Amendments to the plaint should not introduce new causes of action unconnected with the original suit and should not cause irreparable injury and injustice to the other party.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 10-10-1990 passed by the lst Additional District Judge, Ghazipur, by which application No. 38-A moved by the plaintiff-appellants petitioners for amendment of the plaint in original suit No. 335 of 1979, was rejected. The said suit and the two other original suits Nos. 58 of 1981 and 226 of 1980 were consolidated and all the three suits were decided by a common judgment. The application seeking amendment in the plaint was moved before the appellate Court where the appeal was pending against the judgment rendered in the suit.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the controversy in the writ petition it is necessary to set out few facts. The property in suit originally belonged to Baijnath Rai who died leaving behind certain heirs including a son Nagina Rai and his wife Smt. Rajneta who according to the petitioners were incapacitated and disabled to look after their affairs. The petitioners case is that Baijnath Rai left a will dated 7-9-1970 bequeathing his properties to the petitioners and requiring the petitioners to look after his wife and son. The name of the deceaseds son was entered in the revenue papers only for consolation. It is further alleged that taking undue advantage of the invailidity of Nagina Rai, one Uma Shanker fraudulently got a sale deed dated 17-7-1979 executed from him in respect of a part of the holdings without any consideration, hence the petitioners had to file Suit No. 335 of 1979 for cancellation of the sale deed, against Nagina Rai and Uma Shanker and others. It is further alleged in the writ petition that one Nagendra and his mother Smt. Ramoona claiming to be the sisters son and sister respectively of Nagina Rai set up a will dated 15-6-1980 in their favour and filed Suit No. 226 of 1980 against the petitioners for injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession. It is stated that they also set up a gift deed dated 23-5-1979 in favour of Manorama Devi wife of Nagendra aforesaid by Nagina Rai of some agricultural land. Further, one Smt. Deo Muni alleging herself to be the sister of Nagina Rai filed a third Suit No. 58 of 1981 against Smt. Ramoona Devi and Nagendra and others above named for cancellation of the aforesaid will dated 15-6-1980 in favour of Nagendra and Smt. Ramoona Devi.

( 3 ) THE trial court repelled the case of the petitioners which was based on the will and upheld the other three documents aforesaid said to have been executed by Nagina Rai. As stated earlier, the petitioners moved an application for amendment of the plaint before the appellate authority. A number of amendments were proposed in the application which have been summarised and noticed in the impugned order in the following manner :". . . . . . . . . . the plaintiff seeks to add Smt. Manorama Devi wife of Nagendra Rai as defendant No. 3. Then he proposes to add a new para 6c in the plaint setting out the grounds for cancellation of the will deed dated 15-6-1980 executed by Nagina Rai defendant No. 2 in favour of Nagendra Rai and Smt. Ramoona Devi. It is further proposed to add a new para 6d in the plaint setting out the ground for cancellation of a gift deed executed by Nagina Rai dated 23-5-1979 in favour of Smt. Manorama Devi. Thereafter it is proposed to add two more reliefs below para 12 of the plaint marking Ya and Ra by which the plaintiff proposes to claim a decree for cancellation of the aforesaid will deed and gift deed. The plaintiff has further sought to substitute para 11 by deleting the old one as his para refers to the valuation clause of the suit. Thereafter the plaintiff proposes to add the date of knowledge of the gift deed and will deed in para 10 of the plaint. The plaintiff further proposes to add schedules at the foot of the plaint disclosing property affected by the aforesaid gift deed and will deed. "

( 4 ) THE defendant-respondents filed objections opposing the amendment appli