Amendment of defective pleadings may be allowed, but only on costs when the original petition omits a foundational challenge.

Amendment of a petition may be permitted to cure a foundational pleading defect where the original filing did not challenge the applicability of the relevant NDPS provisions, and a later change in stand introduced a different characterisation of the seized goods. The court held that, in the interests of justice, the petitioner could be given one opportunity to amend, but only on payment of costs. The petition was not finally decided on merits and was directed to be reconsidered after amendment, if any, subject to the cost condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be given an opportunity to amend the petition and, if so, on what terms.

Analysis: The petition proceeded on the basis that the seized goods were controlled substances and that Sections 9A and 25A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied. After the Court noted that a later change in the petitioner's stand introduced a different characterisation of the seized goods, it found that the petition as filed did not contain an averment challenging the applicability of those provisions. In the interests of justice, the Court considered it appropriate to permit amendment, but only on payment of costs.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted one opportunity to amend the petition subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000, with the costs to be shared between the respondent and the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

Final Conclusion: The matter was not finally decided on merits and was directed to be taken up again after amendment, if any, on the imposed cost condition.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may permit amendment of a petition to cure a foundational pleading defect, but such indulgence can be conditioned on payment of costs in the interests of justice.

---