Amendments to pleadings are permissible under specific conditions, aiding in determining real disputes between parties.

ORAL ORDER

1.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2.The Petitioners are the Original Plaintiffs. The suit was filed for a declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 18th November 2005 executed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of Defendant No.7 is null and void. Further relief for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering in any manner in the suit plot along with ten metres of access on its northern side was prayed for. The Respondent in this Petition is the original Defendant No.7. The suit was filed in the year 2008. The written statement was filed by Defendant No.7 on 10th September 2008.

3.After the issues were framed on 17th November 2015 and after the examination in chief of Pw.1 was over, an application for amendment of the written statement along with Counter Claim and Schedule of the Amendment was made by Defendant No.7 on 4th April 2019. The application was opposed by the Plaintiff by filing a say. The Trial Court by the impugned Order dated 18th April 2022 passed below Exhibit D-79, allowed the application.

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners pointed out that though the Trial Court allowed the application for Amendment, however dismissed the request of Defendant No.7 for filing a Counter Claim. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that after the trial had commenced, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the application for amendment in the absence of there being any material to establish due diligence on the part of Defendant No.7 in taking up this plea earlier. It is further submitted that Defendant No.7 has taken up new pleas which could not have been permitted by the Trial Court at this stage. Learned Counsel submits that there is no finding about there being any due diligence on the part of Defendant No.7 which is counter to the proviso to Order 6 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ( CPC ). Learned Counsel submitted that the written statement was signed by the Director of the Company and, therefore, the plea that it is due to the inadvertence of the Liaisoning Officer that some material facts could not be brought on record is not tenable at all. In support of his submission, learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai & Ors. vs. Padmalatha & anr, (2009) 2 SCC 409. and that of this Court in Mr. Conception Fernandes & anr. vs. Mrs. Tasneem Shaikh &Ors, 2014(5) All MR 751.

5.Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Defendant No.7, on the other hand, supported the Order passed by the Trial Court.

6.Heard. The suit is filed for declaration of the Sale Deed executed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of Defendant No.7 as null and void. In the application for Amendment, what is sought to be placed on record by way of amendment is that Defendant No.7 had carried out due diligence while purchasing the suit property and that even the mutation was effected followed by the partition of the property. The order regarding partition is pursuant to the filing of the suit. The other plea taken up was that the Plaintiffs had no locus to file the suit as now the partition has been effected and the property has been allotted a separate survey number. It was then contended that the suit is barred by limitation as Plaintiff had knowledge of the transaction between Defendant Nos. 1 and 7.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai & Ors. vs. Padmalatha & anr. (supra) in Paragraph 19, has observed thus :

“19. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispu