.

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ajit Kumar, Advocate assisted by Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsels for the petitioners, Ari Ajay Kumar Singh and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsels for contesting respondent No. 1 and Sri Krishna Shukla, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 & 6.

2. The petitioner’s application seeking amendment/impleadment in original suit No. 274/2004 has been rejected by Court below i.e. the Court of Addl. District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad by order dated 23.3.2012 and this revision has been preferred assailing the said order. This case has come up before this Court by nomination of Hon’ble the Chief Justice by His Lordship’s order dated 19.4.2012.

3. The original suit, admittedly, has been filed by the revisionists themselves impleading the following:

^^1- Jherh rcLlqe iRuh Jh vkbZ0vgen] fuokfluh] th0Vh0ch0 uxj djsyh] bykgkcknA

2- tkosn gSnj

3- ruohj gSnj

4- ukosn gSnj

iq=x.k lS;~;n 'kkSdr vCckl] fuoklh othjxat] y[kuÅ] m0iz0A

5- vij ftykf/kdkjh utwy] bykgkcknA

6- ljdkj] m0iz0] ctfj;s dysDVj] bykgkcknA^^

4. The relief sought by the revisionists in the above suit are as under:

^^;g fd oknhx.k fuEufyf[kr vuqrks"k dh ;kpuk djrs gSa%&

¼v½ ;g fd tfj;s vkKfIr ?kks"k.kk dfFkr Qzh gksYM MhM fnukad 29-3-2004 ftldks izfroknhx.k 2 yxk;r 4 ds ukfeus’ku ij izfrokfnuh ds gd esa vij ftykf/kdkjh utwy] bykgkckn] ljdkj] mRrj izns’k ctfj;s dysDVj] bykgkckn izfroknh la[;k 5 }kjk fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ftldh jftLV~jh fnukad 29-3-2004 dks iqLrd la[;k&1 [k.M la[;k 4419 ds i`"B la[;k 127@160 ds dze la[;k 3956 dks lc jftLVjkj lnj] bykgkckn ds ;gka gqbZ gS] dks 'kwU; ,oa {ks=kf/kdkjh ds ijs ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos vkSj mlds ?kks"k.kk dh lwpuk lc jftLVjkj lnj] bykgkckn dks Hksth tkosA

¼c½ ;g fd okn O;; oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA

¼l½ ;g fd vU; nknjlh U;k;ky; dh jk; esa tks mfpr gks cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k fnyk;k tkosA**

5. For the purpose of considering validity of impugned order though the parties have sought to demonstrate that there is chequered history but, in my view, suffice it to mention that an amendment sought in the plaint by plaintiffs can be rejected on the well established principles only. Normal principle is that an amendment can be made and allowed at any stage unless the principles negativing such amendment are applicable.

6. The law in respect to amendment of pleadings is a bit liberal. The mere fact that application for amendment has been filed after a prolong delay would not justify its rejection where neither it changes the nature of the suit nor intends to add a claim which is barred by limitation nor takes away the claim of the other party nor amounts to a fresh cause of action nor otherwise prejudice the other side. Instead of adding several authorities on this aspect, I intend to refer to the decision of Apex Court in North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs., AIR 2008 SC 2139, where the Court held:

“Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well-settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others, 1957 (1) SCR 595, which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. [Also see: Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990)1 SCC 166]”

7. This has been followed i