D.K. Mahajan, J.
1. This case was called yesterday and the learned counsel for the respondents was not present. I, therefore, held over this case for today. The case has been called today, but the learned counsel has not turned up and, therefore. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner ex parte.
2. This is a petition for revision and is directed against the order of Mr. R. K. Synghal, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, dated the 23rd October. 1964, rejecting the plaintiffs' application for amendment of the plaint. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows. A suit for damages for breach of contract was filed by the plaintiffs against defendants 1 and 2. In the prayer clause a decree was claimed only against defendant 2. In the written statement filed by defendant 2, it was stated that he was not liable for the breach of contract but only defendant 1 was liable for it. In this view of the matter the plaintiffs made an application for amendment of their plaint. In the amendment application a prayer is made that defendant 1 be also included in the prayer clause for purposes of relief. In other words, it is prayed that a decree for damages for breach of contract be passed against defendant 1 also. The application was objected to by defendant 1 and has been rejected by the trial Court on two grounds : (1) that ' the plaintiff wants to make allegations of collusion and mala fide intention on the part of defendant No. 1. No explanation has been given by the defendant-plaintiff as to why these allegations were not made in the plaint as originally framed,' and (2) that ' the objection that defendant 2 was not liable but only defendant 1 was liable for the damages was raised by defendant 2 a year ago ' and therefore, the application for amendment being belated should be rejected. So far as the first ground is concerned, it appears that the learned Judge did not care to read the plaint as originally framed. The allegations of collusion and fraud are already made in the plaint and if those allegations are slightly elaborated by the proposed amendment, it will not bring into play the rule enunciated by the Madras High Court in V. Krishna Aiyar v. Pachiappa Chetty, AIR 1924 Mad 883, on which reliance has been placed by the Court below. Therefore, the first ground on the basis of which the amendment application has been rejected does not hold water.
3. So far as the second ground is concerned, it is no doubt true that the application is belated, but all belated applications for amendment cannot be rejected on that ground, for there is no absolute rule that a belated application for amendment must always be rejected In this connection, a reference may be made to Har Sarup Gupta v. S. Aggarwal (1960) 62 Pun LR 694 (AIR 1960 Punj 653). wherein a belated application for amendment was allowed and its rejection on that ground was set aside. The reason that there was delay in the making of the amendment application is of no consequence in the present case. All that the present petitioners seek to do by the proposed amendment is to bring in the name of defendant No. 1 in the prayer clause against whom a decree is required to be passed. It may be mentioned that in paragraph 35 of the plaint, it has been specifically stated that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the above amount from the defendants. In these circumstances the second ground of objection loses all its significance. That being so. I allow this petition set aside the order of the rial Court and direct that the amendment prayed for be allowed The case will now go back to the trial Court. The trial Court will issue notice for the next date of hearing to the defendants. The plaintiffs are directed to be present in the trial Court on the 8th April, 1965. As there is no representation for the defendant-respondents, there will be no order as to costs.