mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1333 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1044 of 2004 Tej Singh Baid .. Plaintiffs versus Rawatmal Sohanlal Banthia & ors. .. Defendants ... Mr.S.C.Naidu i/b M/s.C.R.Naidu & Co. for the plaintiff/ applicant. Mr.Shailesh Shah i/b T.N. Tripathi for defendant nos.1 to 5. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :9th July 2009 P.C:- 1. Not on board. taken up on board by consent of the parties. Heard forthwith. 2. At the outset, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he does not press the amendment no.4 of the schedule i.e. to say that amendment relating to deletion and substitution of paragraph no.6 of the plaint. Request for substitution of paragraph no.6 of the plaint is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The defendant has opposed the amendment. In my view, amendment does not change the nature of the suit. The plaintiff had originally filed suit for recovery of sum of Rs.17,52,640/- The money was alleged to be due as admitted by the defendant under a Khata Petha receipt dated 1st September 2001. In the plaint, plaintiff however had not given the particulars as to the consideration for which the defendant had issued the khata Petha receipt. By the amendment, plaintiff seeks to give particulars of the consideration advanced for the repayment of the Khata Petha receipt was issued by the defendant. In my view, giving of the particulars of consideration does alter the nature of the suit but the amendment is only clarificatory in nature. Amendment appears to have become necessary on account of the denial of the liability by the defendant. 4. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 the Supreme Court has held that a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure and court always gives leave to amend the pleadings to a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to the opponent which could not be compensated for by an order of costs. Howsoever negligent or careless may have been the first omission, amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. 5. In my view, by allowing the amendment, no injustice is likely to be caused to the defendant. As the claim does not change the nature of the suit the amendment can be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the application for amendment was made after the Summons for Judgment was heard for nearly two sittings and considerable time of the court was wasted in hearing the Summons for Judgment. In the circumstances, I am inclined to award substantial costs. For these reasons, application is allowed and plaintiff is allowed to carry out all the amendments save and except amendment to paragraph no.6 of the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- as condition precedent. Since the costs are awarded for wasting time of the court in hearing summons for judgment. Costs shall be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority or at the discretion of the plaintiff to Kirtikar Law Library within one week. Amendment shall be carried out within two weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J)