Adverting to the facts of present case, it is evident from the record that defendant No.2 Jaipal (since deceased) was earlier represented by a Court Guardian being of unsound mind. The appointment of Court Guardian was never opposed by the plaintiff. It has also come on record that after recovery from ailment, defendant No.2 filed an application for permission to defend the case of his own. That too was not opposed by the plaintiff. After these developments, defendant No.2 filed an application for amendment to incorporate the factum of execution of will dated 17.3.2004, which could not be earlier pleaded in the written statement filed by the Court Guardian, on account of the illness of defendant No.2 and his inability to narrate entire facts. No doubt, the application for amendment was filed after the commencement of trial, but from the sequence of events narrated above, it cannot be said that defendant No.2 was negligent in defending the case, but the aforesaid facts could not be mentioned in the written statement on account of illness of defendant No.2, during his lifetime, which is not the position in Vidyabai's case (supra).. The dominant object to allow the amendment in the pleadings liberally is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, taking into account these facts, the learned trial Court rightly allowed the application for amendment.
