T Selventhiranathan J:

The first defendant applied vide encl. (11) to amend the defence and counterclaim which had been filed in this action. The application was heard by the senior assistant registrar who allowed the same after hearing arguments. Against that decision the plaintiff has appealed to the judge in chambers vide encl. (21) under O. 56 r. 1 of the Rules of the High Court 1980.

Any reference hereinafter in this judgment to a specific Order and rule shall mean that Order and rule in the Rules of the High Court 1980.

The main ground upon which the plaintiff raised its objection to the first defendant's application is that the proposed amendments to the defence and counterclaim are contrary to the original defence and counterclaim filed in this action. Furthermore, the plaintiff contends that the reason for the amendments being sought is to delay its application for summary judgment against all three defendants and its further application to strike out their counterclaim.

In support of this contention, the plaintiff has raised as a further ground of objection the timing of the first defendant's application to amend which has come hard on the heels of the plaintiff's said two applications for summary judgment and to strike out the counterclaim. The plaintiff also contends that the application to amend the defence and counterclaim is an afterthought made to delay the proceedings herein because the borrower itself, a company to which the plaintiff had granted loan facilities, had asked the plaintiff to exercise its rights under the debenture pertaining to the loan facilities, and the facts raised in the proposed amendments to the defence and counterclaim are contrary to what was originally pleaded and is a tactical manoeuvre adopted by the first defendant. The plaintiff further contends that this tactical manoeuvre has resulted in the first defendant seeking to raise issues of fraud and estoppel in his pleading as an afterthought.

The first defendant, on the other hand, contends that he has a right to amend his pleading at any stage of the proceedings and there is no need to file an affidavit in support of such an application under O. 20 rr. 5 and 8, and that the plaintiff could not raise any objection in these circumstances.

In the course of arguments, neither party adverted to a specific provision in O. 18 r. 10 which, to my mind, is material to the first defendants application although Encik Dawson for the plaintiff in his submission did make general reference to authorities on amendments. That rule provides as follows:

10 (1) A party shall not in any pleading make an allegation of fact, or raise any new ground or claim, inconsistent with a previous pleading of his.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be taken as prejudicing the right of a party to amend, or apply for leave to amend, his previous pleading so as to plead the allegations or claims in the alternative.

Let me at the outset say that the court has to look at the substance of the amendments sought to be made and not the label that the party applying to amend attaches to the amendments even if the amendments are contended to raise claims or defences in the alternative. Having said that, and looking at the amendments sought to be made, it is clear that the first defendant is pleading disputed facts in the amendments sought. It cannot be gainsaid that the first defendant was in possession of these facts when the original defence and counterclaim were filed. Yet, in the proposed amendments, the first defendant seeks to bring into existence a third party, one Chian Ngook For, and the other unnamed persons, and to admit a so-called oral agreement reached between the plaintiff and the first defendant which, if true, would have serious consequences on the original agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the other parties thereto as it would have the effect of substantially varying the original agreement. No evidentiary facts relating to the purported