considered the rival contentions. As indicated above, by the amendment what is sought is to bring on record the factum of the construction carried out beyond the bathroom and toilet, the said construction which is sought to be brought on record is different than the construction which is already on record which finds place in paragraph 3. Since the Plaintiff has already founded the suit on the alleged unauthorized construction made by the Defendants, allowing the instant application in my view, would cause no prejudice to the Defendants inasmuch as the alleged factual position on site would come on record which is the alleged additional construction carried out by the Defendants. The Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that there is a delay between the filing of the written statement wherein the defendants have accepted the fact that they have carried out construction and the filing of the application. As indicated above, the amendment sought is in respect of the additional construction and not the construction acceptance of which finds place in the written statement. It is well settled that a Court should be liberal in allowing a pre-trial amendment, more so, an averment which is required to render a complete and effectual adjudication of the lis between the parties. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 4th January, 2013 is required to be quashed and set aside, and is accordingly quashed and set aside, resultantly the application Exhibit 31 would stand allowed.
