Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) When, after the remand by the High Court with a direction to the trial judge to pass a fresh order in respect of amendment in paragraph no.37 and in the prayer clause, the application seeking the aforesaid amendments was rejected vide order dated 02.08.2012 in Title Suit No.04 of 1997, the plaintiff has approached this Court.
(2.) Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C confers powers upon the courts to permit amendment in the pleadings. The provision under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C is founded on justice, equity and good conscience and that is the reason amendment in the pleadings is construed liberally. Amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the trial, even at the stage of final hearing, however, this power is restricted under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. It provides that after trial in the suit has commenced amendment in the pleadings shall not be allowed. The statutory restriction contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C has been held mandatory. However, by now it is well-settled that if amendment in the pleadings would not cause prejudice to other party and the amendment sought to be incorporated is for the reason that the matter could not have been pleaded inspite of due diligence and it is not on account of fault on the part of the party, it may be allowed provided it does not change the nature of the suit and it is necessary to decide the real issue in the suit [Refer, "North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vrs. Bhagwan Das, 2008 8 SCC 511".
(3.) Plea taken by the plaintiff is that if amendments as per paragraph nos. IX and X of the amendment application dated 06.05.2009 are permitted in the plaint, neither the nature of the suit would change nor it would cause any prejudice to the defendants.;