JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. The order granting leave to amend the suit is questioned in these proceedings on the ground that the grant of leave to amend the pleadings changes the character of the suit and the cause of action pleaded in the suit. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition is as follows:- OS.No.30 of 2023 was instituted by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking to declare a co-option of defendants 10 to 25 to the existing governing body of the petitioner/first defendant society in the meeting held on 21.05.2023 as illegal, void and contrary to the Rules. A consequential prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 10 to 25 not to act as the members of the governing body of petitioner/first defendant society was also sought for. The plaint discloses that the cause of action of the suit arose on 21.05.2023 the date on which the extraordinary governing meeting was unlawfully convened and it was decided to co-opt defendants 10 to 25 as the members of the petitioner/first defendant society. Though interim in nature, an order was passed in I.A.No.2//2023 on 21.08.2023, as evident from Ext.P2, granting the relief sought for in the suit itself. A clarification was attempted on the side of the petitioner society stating that the interim order is causing prejudice to them inasmuch as they have been prevented from conducting an election to the governing body of the society. The request was accepted under Ext.P5 and the interim order passed under Ext.P2 was clarified. It was ordered that the interim order shall not take away the rights of the society to elect new governing body members as per the bye-laws. It was further ordered that the petitioner would be at liberty to conduct elections to the office bearers and the Managing Committee once the governing members are elected as per the bye-laws. Accordingly, a notice was issued on 29.09.2023 proposing to conduct an election on 28.10.2023, as evident from Ext.P4. It is an admitted case that the election was conducted on 28.10.2023. Immediately thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A.No.28/2023 in OS No.30/2023 seeking amendment of the claim by raising a challenge to the election conducted on 28.10.2023 wherein defendants 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22 and 24 were elected to the governing body of the society. It is an admitted case that the election was conducted on 28.10.2023. Immediately thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A.No.28/2023 in OS No.30/2023 seeking amendment of the claim by raising a challenge to the election conducted on 28.10.2023 wherein defendants 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22 and 24 were elected to the governing body of the society. The petitioner resisted this application by filing a counter affidavit stating that the cause of action pleaded in the suit as well as in the present amendment petition is entirely different and thus cannot be granted. It is further contended that the proposed amendment will alter the character and nature of the suit and will cause prejudice to the respondents. By Ext.P7 order, the Sub Court, Hosdurg allowed Ext.P5(a) application on the ground that if the amendment is not granted, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. While allowing the application, the Sub Court observed that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner . The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. Heard Shri. Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Sri. Sukarnan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14 and 25. 4. Shri Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the principles applying grant of amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been construed liberally, such liberal construction cannot outweigh the statutory inhibition or overreach the statutory boundaries placed on such power. The learned counsel further pointed out that the relief sought for in the suit was only against co-option of defendants 10 to 25 and that no other relief was sought for. He further pointed out that by virtue of this amendment, an entirely new and different cause of action is sought to be introduced in the suit and entirely different relief is sought, without necessarily seeking amendment to the cause of action. Resultantly, inconsistent pleadings are there in the suit. As regards prejudice, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no relief was sought for against defendants 2, 4, 6 and the relief was confined to defendants 10 to 25 and that too was directed against the co-option. Resultantly, inconsistent pleadings are there in the suit. As regards prejudice, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no relief was sought for against defendants 2, 4, 6 and the relief was confined to defendants 10 to 25 and that too was directed against the co-option. The plaintiff has no case that he had contested the election under two circumstances and therefore, he has no locus standi to contest the elections. This aspect has been completely lost sight of by the trial Court while allowing the application. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd [ (2022) 16 SCC 1 ] and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Others [ AIR 2024 SC 4779 ]. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff pointed out that since the present election was conducted in violation to the directions in Ext.P5 order, the plaintiff is always at liberty to seek amendment of the claim and raise the additional plea regarding the validity of the election conducted on 28.10.2023. He further pointed out that the trial Court was correct in holding that if the amendment is declined, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu (Supra) and contended that while granting amendment, the court should avoid a hyper-technical approach, and should ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. In the present case, it is pointed out that, inasmuch as the elections were conducted without proper notice and that the appointment of Returning Officer itself was wrong, and further that there was no election to the governing body of the society as per the bye-laws, as permitted under Ext.P5, the validity could always be subject matter of an amendment. 6. In reply, Sri. Jawahar Jose points out to Ext.P3 notice dated 04.09.2023 and Ext.P4 election notification dated 29.09.2023 and submits that the election in fact is to the governing body of the society and therefore, the contention raised by the plaintiff is incorrect. 7. I have considered the submissions raised across the Bar. Perused the impugned order. 8. 6. In reply, Sri. Jawahar Jose points out to Ext.P3 notice dated 04.09.2023 and Ext.P4 election notification dated 29.09.2023 and submits that the election in fact is to the governing body of the society and therefore, the contention raised by the plaintiff is incorrect. 7. I have considered the submissions raised across the Bar. Perused the impugned order. 8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the material aspect that weighed in the minds of the trial Court is that if leave to amend the pleadings is not granted, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. No doubt, the trial Court also formed an opinion that while granting amendment, the Court should always be liberal. But, this Court is afraid these criteria alone are not sufficient for considering an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC . 9. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd (Supra) is material insofar as the outcome of the present case is concerned. In the concluding portion of the judgment, the Supreme Court has summarized the principles governing the prayer of amendment. Following paragraphs of the judgment are extracted:- “71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is malafide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. By the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is malafide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897).” 10. Two issues stare at the face of the record of proceedings:- (a) While granting amendment, the trial Court cannot loss sight of the fact that the cause of action pleaded in the suit as well as the amendment application is entirely different. Further, the relief sought for in the suit is only against the co-option of defendants 10 to 25 in the governing body of the society. In other words, as against defendants 2, 4 and 6, no relief was sought for. While granting interim relief under Ext.P2, though the Court has overreached the consideration and the parameters of grant of interim relief, and virtually granted the final relief sought for in the suit, the petitioner society did not object to the said relief and therefore, the co-option of defendants 10 to 25 was cancelled. The result flowing out of the said exercise is that the society had to necessarily engage itself with a fresh election. This was sought to be clarified at the instance of the petitioner, which was granted under Ext.P5 order. (b) The plaintiff was also not aggrieved by the clarification sought for and granted by the trial Court under Ext.P5 order. After Ext.P5, election was notified and the election was conducted. The attempt now made before this Court to justify Ext.P7 order is that the petitioner who was a member of the society was not put on notice regarding the convening of general body meeting for the election of the members of the governing body of the petitioner society. He further pointed out that the appointment of the Returning Officer itself was wrong. It was under these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court with the amendment petition. However, that by itself is not a reason for the Court to grant the amendment as sought for. 11. He further pointed out that the appointment of the Returning Officer itself was wrong. It was under these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court with the amendment petition. However, that by itself is not a reason for the Court to grant the amendment as sought for. 11. As stated above, while seeking an amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff did not seek any amendment to the cause of action pleaded in the suit. By incorporating the relief now sought, which is completely alien to the scope of the suit, new relief was sought for against certain defendants, against whom the plaintiff did not seek any relief at the first instance. Therefore, it could be safely concluded that those defendants are certainly prejudiced by the said amendment. 12. That apart, this Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that none of the candidates who failed in the election held on 28.10.2023 had joined the hands of the plaintiff or had come before the Court with a separate suit. The resultant position is that by virtue of grant of this amendment, at the instance of a sole member, the entire election of a society is being questioned. What object the petitioner decides to achieve out of the said exercise is not clear from a reading of Ext.P5(a) amendment application. 13. In this context, this Court finds considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action so as to set up a entirely new case foreign to the case set up in the plaint, such amendment must be disallowed. This is exactly what the Supreme Court held in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd (supra) which was followed in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Others (Supra). 14. On an overall consideration of the materials placed before this Court, this Court is satisfied that the Sub Court, Hosdurg erred in allowing the application for amendment. Accordingly, the exercise now done by the Sub Court warrants interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 15. Resultantly, this Original Petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P7 order in I.A.No.28/2023 in OS No.30/2023. Accordingly, the exercise now done by the Sub Court warrants interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 15. Resultantly, this Original Petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P7 order in I.A.No.28/2023 in OS No.30/2023. However, it is made clear that the judgment of this Court will not stand against the first respondent/plaintiff in filing an appropriately constituted suit before the jurisdictional court, if so advised. If the first respondent or the supporting defendants in the suit decide to file such suit, the contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated in that suit.