AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Liberhan, J.—This revision petition arises out of an order declining the permission to amend the written statement.
The sole ground on which the amendment of the written statement has been disallowed is that the plea sought to be raised by way of amendment was already in the knowledge of the Defendant and that the application for amendment has been made at a belated stage when the evidence of the Plaintiff had already been closed.
The trial court lost sight of the fact that the rules for permission to amend the pleadings are the rules of procedures and are hand-made to do substantial justice to the parties. It is well established that mere delay in seeking amendment is not sufficient ground to decline the permission to amend the pleadings. Even some negligence on the part of the parties in conducing their case is not a sufficient ground to refuse amendment. The object of the procedure is only to do substantial justice and for negligence and delay the cost is the panecea. The amendment can only be refused if it is barred by some statutory provisions of law or the party has acquired a right which cannot be compensated with cost or that the amendment sought is mala fide. But here it is neither of these case. Therefore, the impugned order having been passed ignoring the well accepted principles of amendment, the same is quashed and the amendment sought by the Petitioners is allowed subject, of course, to the payment of Rs. 200/- as cost. The revision petition is allowed accordingly.