Amendments to pleadings may be granted despite delays if they serve justice and do not bar the opposing party's rights.

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2 Leave granted.

3 The appellants herein filed a suit before the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, originally seeking the following
reliefs:-
a) To grant a judgment and decree of permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 10 their men, and agents from interfering with A A1 L O N C D portion of the suit schedule property.
b) For possession of the property identified as A-1, B, M, N, O, L portion and also the N N-1 O, O-1 at annexure-A to the plaint of the suit schedule property.
c) Such other relief/reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case as also the cost of this suit.

4 It is their case during the pendency of the said suit the respondent in violation of the court order further encroached into suit property to an extent of 15' x 15'. Therefore, the appellants sought for an amendment of the plaint seeking for possession of the said encroached area also. This application was also allowed by the Trial Court.

5 In the written statement filed by the respondents, a contention was taken that a suit for injunction and possession without seeking a declaration of title was not maintainable. Written statement was filed on 17th September, 1994. On 27th of July, 2000 realizing that a prayer for declaration on the facts of the case was essential the appellants filed an application for amendment of the plaint under O.6 R.17, CPC by adding the following prayers :-
"[a] To declare that the Plaintiffs are the owners A-1, B, M, N, N-1.O-1, O, L of the suit schedule property."

6 The Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, by his judgment and order dated 22nd of September, 2000 rejected the application of the appellants on the ground that the application is filed at a belated stage.

7 Being aggrieved by the said order the appellants preferred a Revision Petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The said Revision Petition came to be dismissed by the High Court also on the ground that the application for amendment was filed at a belated stage. The court also held that the amendment introduced a different relief than what was originally asked for.

8 The appellants thinking that there was an error apparent on the judgment of the High Court filed a Review Petition which came to be dismissed by the High Court.

9 Therefore, the appellants are now before us in this appeal challenging the said order of the High Court as also the order of the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, rejecting their application praying for amendment of the plaint.

10 Ms. Kiran Suri, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Trial Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that a belated application for amendment of the plaint, per se can not be allowed, she also contended the High Court erred in corning to the conclusion that the proposed amendment if granted would take away the right accrued to the respondent by lapse of time. She submitted that this view of the High Court is opposed to a number of judgments of this Court where this Court had taken the view that delay in filing an application for amendment by itself should not be a ground for rejection of such application unless a serious prejudice was caused to the opposite party. She further submitted on the facts of this case the necessary averments in regard to the title of the appellants over the suit property was already there in the original plaint and what was sought by the amendment was only a relief in furtherance to the said plea found in the plaint. She also submitted that assuming for argument sake that there was a delay which creates a right on the opposite side even then in an appropriate case, it was open to the Court to consider the prayer for amendment bearing in mind the fact that the power of the Court to allow application for amendment is unfettered provided the facts of the case so required the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of allowing the amendment. In support of her case, she placed strong re