The Judgments cited in support of the amendments allowed by the learned Single Judge are Sampath Kumar vs-

Ayyakannu, AIR 2002 SC 3369, Kedar Nath Agarwal vs- Dhanraji Devi, (2004) 8 SCC 76, Andhra Bank vs- Official Liquidator, (2005) 5 SCC 75 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs- K.K. Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 85 and the ones cited to oppose by the other party are A.K. Gupta vs- Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96, Kumaraswami Gounder vs- D.R. Nanjappa, AIR 1978 Mad. FAO(OS)405/2009 Page 73 of 79 285 (FB), Bharat Karsondas Thakkar vs- Kiran Construction, AIR 2008 SC 2134 and Neena Khanna vsPeepee Publishers, 167(2010) DLT 247(DB). We have digested all these precedents and in our considered view the general principle adopted by the Courts while deciding an application for amendment of pleadings is that the exercise of discretion to allow an amendment has to be exercised liberally, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other party or the Court comes to the conclusion that the prayer of amendment is vexatious and mischievous. The true purpose of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is to allow the parties to bring forth the true nature of dispute or controversy before the Court. The rule of pleadings that the parties have to confine their arguments and the evidence they adduce in support of their case to the averments in the pleadings, makes the provision for amendment further significant. At the stage of determining the merits of an amendment application, the Court is not supposed to go into the merits of the controversy itself and should confine itself to the merits of the amendment sought. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs- Narayanaswamy, (2009) 10 SCC 84 : Whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy 58. The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courts discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment. No prejudice or injustice to other party The other important condition which should govern the discretion of the court is the potentiality of prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to the other side. Ordinarily, if the other side is compensated by costs, then there is no injustice but in practice hardly any court grants actual costs to the opposite side. The courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings but courts powers must be exercised judiciously and with great care. .. FAO(OS)405/2009 DELHI HIGH COURT. Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments

63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; ( 3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; ( 5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.