Corporate veil amendment allowed where fraud and director conduct were already pleaded, without changing the suit's character.

A plaint may be amended to add an express plea for lifting the corporate veil and director liability where the existing pleading already alleges fraud, diversion of funds, and personal conduct by the directors. The Delhi HC treated the proposed amendment as an elaboration of an existing foundation rather than a new case, because amendment proceedings do not test the truth of the pleading and liberal amendment is favoured before trial when it aids determination of the real controversy without prejudice. The amendment was therefore allowed, and the corporate-veil plea could be incorporated without changing the suit's nature or character.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be amended to add an express plea for lifting of the corporate veil and personal liability of the company's directors without changing the nature and character of the suit.

Analysis: The plaint already contained specific allegations of fraud, diversion of funds, and personal conduct attributed to the directors. The proposed amendment did not introduce a new foundation but only elaborated the existing plea and sought to make the case more explicit. In the law of amendment, a court does not test the truth or falsity of the proposed pleading at the amendment stage, and amendments are to be allowed liberally, especially before trial, when they are necessary for deciding the real controversy and do not prejudice the other side. On that basis, the proposed plea of piercing the corporate veil was treated as an elaborative amendment and not one that altered the suit's essential character.

Conclusion: The amendment was allowed and the plea of lifting of the corporate veil could be incorporated in the plaint.

---