Can an amendment to the plaint be allowed where it causes prejudice or injustice to the other side?

Paragraph 17It is true that the Court shall take a liberal view in allowing the amendment of plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC, especially, in partition suits to include the properties by way of amendment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, for the effective and proper adjudication of the partition suit. But, at the same time, the petitioner cannot act as per his whims and fancies so as to include the schedule property one after the other by filing the amendment petitions, is rightly held by the Trial Court. On relying upon the said judgement, this court finds that the petitioner has not provided any sufficient reason of bona fide intention for filing the petition after a lapse of 8 years and his failure to mention the proposed properties in the plaint even when its existence was within his knowledge, which as per this Court, a dishonest one. Therefore, such amendment is allowed, it will cause prejudice or injustice to the respondents 7 and 8. The judgments relied on by the petitioner in the cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu also held the amendment can be allowed if it does not result in injustice to the other side. As held by this above judgment, the present amendment will cause injustice to the respondents, therefore, the said judgments will not come into the aid of the petitioner.