ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1] Heard Mr. Tajane, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 2nd July 2015 by which the Appeal Court has dismissed the petitioners' application at Exhibit-21 seeking leave to amend the written statement.

3] Mr. Tajane submits that the pleadings can be amended at any stage. He submits that the appeal is nothing but a continuation of the suit and therefore, there is no bar to seeking leave to amend the pleadings at the appellate stage. He submits that the impugned order is quite cryptic and was passed even before the opposite party could file any reply to the amendment. He now clarifies that the opposite party were not given opportunities to file reply and no replies were filed. He points out that the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy which arises between the parties. He submits that no prejudice whatsoever will occasion the respondents and the prejudice, if any, can always have been compensated by way of costs. He submits that severe prejudice will occasion to the petitioners, in case, the leave to amend is denied. For all these reasons, Mr. Tajane submits that the impugned order warrants interfer