ORDER Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner and the private respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are all real brothers. Two suits were filed by the petitioner against the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Original Suit No. 327 of 1992 was for partition; and Original Suit No. 418 of 1992 was for permanent injunction. After tiling of the written statements by the respondents in both the suits, the petitioner moved separate application for amendment of his plaint, which was allowed by the trial Court vide two separate orders dated 13-10-1999. Defendants filed two separate revisions against the aforesaid orders, which have been allowed by two separate orders dated 11-8-2000 and the amendment sought has been disallowed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 11-8-2000, these two writ petitions have been filed. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same cause of action and also out of similar set of facts, they are being decided together.
2. I have heard Sri V.K. Birla, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage.
3. The suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 1992 against his three real brothers, in which written statements were filed in the same year. Replication was filed by the petitioner on 2-1-1993. The amendment application was thereafter filed by the petitioner in March, 1999 whereby the facts relating to the sale of certain properties by the father of the parties in the year 1978 was sought to be added, and certain parties to whom the land was sold were also sought to be impleaded. The prayer clause was also sought to be amended to the effect that share of the property claimed by the petitioner, which was 1/4th earlier he increased to 19/24. The said application was filed without giving any explanation for delay in moving the same except that such facts and prayers were left out by mistake.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment should be allowed liberally in case if the same would be necessary for determining the real controversy in issue and the delay in filing such amendment application can be duly compensated by cost. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 303 : AIR 1995 SC 1498; Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary 1995 Supp (3) SCC 179; Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan (2001) 2 SCC 472 : AIR 2001 SC 699; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (2002) 7 SCC 559 : AIR 2002 SC 3369 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi (2006) 4 SCC 385 : AIR 2006 SC 1647.
5. The view of the Supreme Court in this regard is consistent and the law has to be applied in the Facts of the case in hand. The Apex Court in the case of Pankaja v. Yellapa (2004) 6 SCC 415 : AIR 2004 SC 4102 Para 14 has held as under:
The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straitjacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends or the factual background of that case.
6. After considering various decisions of the Apex Court relating to amendment of pleading, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devendra Mohan v. State of U.P. 2004 (1) ARC 504 : AIR 2004 All 369 was of the view that "the amendment is not permissible if the very basic structure of the plaint is changed or the amendment itself is not bona fide. In case the facts were in the knowledge of the party at the time of presenting the pleadings, unless satisfactory explanation is furnished for not introducing those pleadings at the initial stage, the amendment should not be allowed."
7. In the present case, certain new facts are sought to be introduced by the petitioner and that too at a very late stage. The facts relating to sale deed having been executed by the father of the parties in the year 1978 was sought to be brought on record. The suit was filed in the year 1192. In the written statement filed by the defendants in the same year, those facts had already been brought on record. The application seeking amendment was filed after seven years, in the year 1999, without giving any explanation whatsoever for not having mentioned the said facts initially in the plaint. Merely saying that by mistake such facts could not be brought on record would not be sufficient. Under the garb of seeking amendment it would not be permissible to substitute new cause of action or change the nature of the suit or change the prayer made in the suit, except when the Court thinks it proper and necessary. The facts being brought by way of amendment cannot be said to be subsequent development after the filing of the suit. In such circumstances, where an amendment is sought, not only with delay but without any explanation for such delay, and new parties are sought to be impleaded and description of the property in dispute is also to be changed, in my view, the same has rightly been rejected by the revisional Court. As such, no interference is called for with the impugned orders.
8. These writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Let a Photostat of this order be placed on the record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45220 of 2000.