R.C. Lahoti, J.
(1) Heard on the question of admission. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the trial court permitting an amendment in the plaint sought for by the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages/manse profit against the petitioner based on landlord-tenant relationship.
(2) For the period commencing 1.3.1994 the plaintiff-respondents have claimed damages calculated @ Rs. 30.00 per sft. After the filing of the written statement the plaintiff/respondents moved an application for amendment seeking enhancement in the quantum of damages for wrongful use and occupation. It was submitted that they are residents of England, have not resided in India for more than ten years and were not aware of the current market rate of the property. They now seek the claim being allowed to be raised to the rate of Rs. 100.00 per sft. It is submitted by the counsel for the defendant-petitioners that the trial court has committed a jurisdictional error in permitting the amendment. It is submitted that the claim made @ 30.00 per sft was a well calculated and conscious claim preferred and by permitting the amendment, the court has allowed the plaintiffs to resile from the original rate of claim for damages which amendment operates to the prejudice of the defendant-petitioners. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in
(3) Having heard the counsel for the petitioner I am of the opinion that no case is made out for admitting the revision petition. The amendment has been sought for at an early stage of the suit. There is no question of limitation or jurisdiction involved. Merely because the plaintiff is enhancing the amount for damages over and above what was originally sought for, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs arc resiling from their original stand or are withdraw some valuable admission in favor of the defendant-petitioner.
(4) The petitioner still has the opportunity of amending the written statement and contesting the merits of the averments now sought to be introduced by the plaintiff-respondents.
(5) An amendment sought for at an early stage of the suit has to be liberally allowed so as to bring out the real matter in controversy by permitting the parties to make such averments as they wish to make in support of their respective claims. The prayer for amendment cannot be refused unless a relief is sought to be introduced which is barred by law of limitation or is malafide or is intended to over-reach the court or proposed to take away a valuable advantage or right which has already accrued to the other party. No such circumstance exists in the case at hand.
(6) For the foregoing reasons the revision is held to be devoid of merit. It is dismissed in limine.
(7) Dismissed as infructuous.
