7.Indeed, the entire basis of Mr. Jayakar’s submission appears
to me to be faulty. It suggests that every time a particular answer is
obtained in evidence, a pleading must be amended. In the case of
the plaintiff, that means amending the plaint, then permitting an
additional written statement, then casting additional issues,
followed by additional examination-in-chief, further cross-
examination and so on, and, in the bargain, setting at naught the
cross-examination till that time. I would imagine that the ‘liberal’
approach to amendments is in an inverse relation to the stage of the
suit. Where, as in this case, the plaintiff has not only led his
evidence but has been cross-examined and has closed his case, and
is now in the midst of cross-examining a defendant’s witness, the
court should be very circumspect indeed in permitting an
amendment to an original pleading. An overwhelming case must be
made out to show (a) why that pleading is essential; (b) that the
pleading sought to be introduced is necessary and is not merely
evidentiary material of the kind that the court will consider at final
arguments; (c) why that material could not have been introduced
earlier; and (d) that the plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced if the
amendment is not allowed. It is not sufficient to show any one of
these four. All four must be demonstrated. Mr. Jayakar is, in my
