The legal judgment emphasizes that amendments to pleadings in civil proceedings must adhere to principles of due diligence and should not fundamentally alter the case or prejudice the opposing party. Specifically, amendments should only be permitted if they are necessary for the effective adjudication of the case and are not introduced as a means to introduce a new or inconsistent case that could cause injustice or delay the proceedings (!) (!) (!) .

A critical factor is whether the party seeking amendment was aware of the facts prior to filing the original pleadings or could have reasonably known through due diligence. If the facts were already known or could have been discovered earlier, the amendment may be deemed as introduced in bad faith or as an attempt to mislead the court, especially if the amendment seeks to introduce subsequent events that could have been brought on record earlier (!) (!) (!) .

Additionally, amendments that introduce new cases or facts that are inconsistent with the original pleadings, particularly those that could have been known at the time of filing, are generally disallowed, especially if they are sought after a significant delay and without sufficient explanation. The order of finality of previous judicial decisions and the absence of challenge to such orders also play a role in determining whether amendments can be permitted (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, amendments should not be used as a tool to prolong litigation or to alter the fundamental character of the case unless they are imperative for proper adjudication. Courts are encouraged to adopt a liberal approach before the commencement of trial, provided that the amendments do not cause irreparable prejudice and are necessary for a just resolution of the dispute (!) (!) (!) .

In the specific context of the provided case, the court found that the proposed amendments sought to change the factual foundation of the case—particularly regarding the number of premises in possession and the timeline of events—that were already decided or could have been known earlier. Since these facts were available and not challenged or amended earlier, allowing such amendments would be unjustified and could lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court also noted that the previous final orders, which confirmed the facts as they stood, had not been challenged and thus attained finality, further justifying the refusal of the amendments (!) (!) (!) .

In conclusion, amendments in civil pleadings should be approached with caution, ensuring they are made in good faith, with due diligence, and without causing prejudice or altering the core issues of the case. If these criteria are not met, courts are justified in disallowing amendments to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.