The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay is not a ground for refusal of amendment in pleadings, and the amendment sought should not change the nature of defence or prejudice the rights of the opposing party.

Mahendra Dayal, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 08.10.2007, passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Sultanpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2006, whereby the amendment application moved on behalf of the petitioner, has been rejected.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit, being Regular Suit No. 11 of 1996, against the petitioner for specific performance of contract. It was inter-alia stated that the respondent No. 1 had paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as advance for the said contract. The petitioner filed written statement stating that the property had been purchased by his father and, therefore, it was part of ancestral property. The house was partitioned in 1977, in which, the house in question was allotted in the share of the petitioner and his four sons. Thus, the share of the petitioner in the house was only 1/5th. It was also pleaded in the written statement that it was specifically mentioned in the agreement that in case the sale-deed is not executed within the stipulated time, she shall repay the principal amount of Rs. 80,000/- together with a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. After the evidence of the parties was recorded before the trial court, the arguments were heard and the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 was decreed for payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- together with interest @ 5% per annum. The respondent No. 1 feeling aggrieved, filed appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner sought amendment in the written statement to add Para-18C stating that during the last 17 years, the market value of the property was increased and since the agreement for sale in question was for only Rs. 2.40 lacs, the same was not en-forcible. The new Para-24A was also sought to be added taking the plea that the suit was barred by the provisions of Sections 14 & 20 of the Specific Relief Act. This application was opposed by the respondent. The main ground for objection was that the suit was pending since 1996 and there was no need of any amendment in the pleadings. The new facts sought to be introduced by way of amendment were already there in the written statement.

3. It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that the learned Appellate Court rejected the application mainly on the ground that the facts sought to be introduced in the written statement by way of amendment, were already there in the written statement. Moreover, the amendment could not be allowed at the appellate stage when there was no need to permit such amendment. The appellate Court was also of the view that for proper adjudication of appeal, the amendment was not necessary.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by way of amendment, the petitioner wanted to take a legal plea that the suit was barred by provisions of Sections 14 & 20 of the Specific Relief Act. This amendment being purely legal did not require any evidence and as such the amendment ought to have been allowed by the learned appellate Court. It has also been submitted that it is a settled law that the legal plea can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The appeal is a continuation of the suit and the proposed amendment neither change the nature of pleadings nor in any way prejudice the case of the respondent. So far as the addition of new Para-18A, B & C are concerned, the submission of the learned counsel is that by way of adding these paras, the petitioner wanted to further explain the pleadings already existed in the written statement. The amendments sought by the petitioner were only explanatory and ought not have been rejected by the appellate Court.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2012 (30) LCD Page 739 (SC), in which, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that liberal approach in allowing amendment of pleadings shoul