The main legal point established is that an amendment should be allowed if necessary for determining the real controversy, but not if it seeks to delay the trial or if the facts were known at the time of filing the original pleadings without a satisfactory explanation for their omission.

Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure-IV), by which the learned trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner for amending the written statement.

2. A suit was filed in 1991 by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for ejectment and possession in respect of the land in dispute. Petitioners filed the written statement and the trial picked up progress. Present petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 25.3.2003, which has been rejected vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2003. Hence this petition.

3. According to the petitioners, the application could not have been dismissed for the reason that the application was bona fide and the amendment, if allowed, would facilitate the conclusion of the trial. Delay cannot be the ground for dismissal of the application.

4. However, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed it and submitted that the amendment sought to be made was not permissible as the present petitioners miserably failed to explain as to why the pleadings could not have been taken at the earlier stage of filing of the written statement. Thus, petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The issue involved herein is being considered by the Courts every day. Amendment in the pleadings may generally be allowed and the amendment may also be allowed at a belated stage. However, it should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The amendment sought should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Application for amendment may be rejected if the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him injury which could not be compensated in terms of a cost or change the nature of the suit itself as it cannot be permitted to create an entirely new case by amendment. A right accrued in favour of a party by lapse of time cannot be permitted to be taken away by amendment. Amendment can also be allowed at appellate stage. Introduction of an entirely new case, displacing even admission by a party is not permissible. Vide Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others, AIR 1957 SC 363 ; Nanduri Yogananda Laxminarsimhachari and others v. Agasthe Swarswamivaru, AIR 1960 SC 622 ; M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co., AIR 1977 SC 680 ; Pandit Ishwardas v. State of M. P., AIR 1979 SC 551 and Mulk Raj Batra v. District Judge, Dehradun, AIR 1982 SC 24.

6. Similar view has been reiterated in G. Nagamma and another v. Siromanamma and another, (1996) 2 SCC 25 and B. K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameshwaran Pillai and another, (2000) 1 SCC 712. However, a party cannot be permitted to move an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code after the judgment has been reserved. Vide Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Co., AIR 1964 SC 993.

7. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham and others, AIR 1965 SC 1008, observed that even the Court itself can suggest the amendment to the parties for the reason that main purpose of the Court is to do justice, and therefore, it may invite the attention of the parties to the defects in the pleadings, so that they can be remedied and the real issue between the parties may be tried. However, it should not give rise to entirely a new case.

8. In Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1604, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court may allow to certain extent even the conversion of the nature of the suit, provided it does not give rise to entirely a new cause of action. An amendment sought in a plaint filed for specific performance may be allowed to be done without abandoning the said relief but amendment seeking for damages for breach of contract may be permitted.

9. I