1C.LR. 1988 February 5 fTRlANTAFYLUDES, P.,LORIS,STYUANIDES,JJ.] FEREOSCHRISTOPOULOS, Appellant(Plaintiff), v. THEATTORNEY-GENERALOFTHEREPUBLIC, Respondent (Defendant). (CivilAppeal No. 6557). CivilProcedure — Pleadings— Amendment of— As a ruleallowed, if necessary to do justice between the parties and if hardship caused thereby can be compensated withcosts. 5 10 Appeal — Power of Court of Appeal to interfere with the exercise of discretionof trialCourt— Principlesapplicable. The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court. Applying the principles governing the amendment of pleadings andtheinterference with thediscretion ofatrialCourt,the Court upheld certain of theamendmentsallowed by thetrialCourt, but allowed theappeal inrespect of some othersandtheadditionof a counterclaimtothe defence. Appeal allowed inpart. Casesreferred to: Tsiappas v.Republic
(1974)1C.L.R. 167; 15 υ DriveCompany Ltd. v. Panayi
(1980)1C.L.R. 544; Evripidouv.Kannaourou
(1985)1C.L.R. 24; Phylactou v. Michael
(1982)1C.L.R. 204; TheShip «Maria»v.Williamsand GlynsBankLtd.
(1983)1C.L.R. 706; 20 HellenicBank Ltd. v.Kosma
(1984)1C.L.R.53; Jonitexo Ltd v. Adidas
(1984)1 C.L.R.263; Andreou v. TsouloftasConstructionsLtd.
(1985)1C.L.R. 373; Aristidouv. YiannoplastLtd.
(1986)1 C.L.R. 548. 79 Christopoulosv-Attorney-General <1988) Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff against the ruling of the District Court of Limassol (Fr. Nicolaides, Ag.S.D.J.) dated the 25th April, 1983 (ActionNo.2617/83)wherebyleavewasgrantedtotheAttorneyGeneral oftheRepublic, asdefendant, toamend thestatement of defence and add thereto a counterclaim. 5 K.Michaelides, for the appellant. Chr.Ioannides, for the respondent. Cur.adv. vult TRIANTAFYLUDES P. read the following decision of the 10 Court. The appellant, who isthe plaintiff in an action before the District Court of Limassol, has appealed against the Ruling of a Judge of that Court by means of which leave was granted to the Attorney-General of the Republic, as the defendant in the said action, to amend the statement of defence and to add thereto a 15 counterclaim. Bytheaforesaid actiontheappellantpraysforadeclaration that he isthe tenant of an area of forest land atTroodos and thathe is entitled to occupy such land, and the buildings standing thereon, on the terms set out in an agreement of lease which wasentered 20 into between the Government of Cyprus and V. Mouradian and two othersastenants,whohaveassignedthelandtotheappellant. In the statement of defence ofthe respondent itispleaded that under the termsof the aforementioned agreementthere could be no assignment or subletting by the tenants without the written 25 consent of the Government of Cyprus, as the landlord, and that such consent hasnever been given. The principles governing the exercise of juducial discretion in relation to applications for amendment of pleadings have been expounded in, inter alia, the cases of Tsiappas v. The Republic, 30
(1974)1C.L.R. 167, UDriveCompany Limited v. Panayi,
(1980)1 C.L.R. 544, and Evripidou v.Kannaourou,
(1985)1C.L.R. 24, and need notbe reiterated inthisjudgment once again.It suffices to saythat, asa rule, an amendment of pleadings istobe allowed if it is necessary to do justice between the parties and if the 35 hardshipcausedbytheamendment canbecompensated bycosts. 80 1 CL.R. Christopoulosv.Attorney-General Triantafyllides P. Asthe Ruling against whichthe present appeal hasbeen made istheresultoftheexercise ofjudicialdiscretion bythetrialcourtit must be stressed that this Court, as an appellate tribunal, will not interfere withthedecision of thetrialcourtunlessitissatisfied that 5 the discretion was exercised wrongly (see, inter alia,Phylactou v. Michael,
(1982)1C.L.R. 204, The Ship «Maria* v. Williams and Glyns Bank Ltd.,
(1983)1 C.L.R. 706, Hellenic Bank Ltd. v. Kosma,
(1984)1C.L.R. 53,TheJonitexo Ltd. v.Adidas,
(1984)1 C.L.R. 263, Andreou v. Tsouloftas Constructions Ltd.,
(1985)1 10 C.L.R. 373andAristidou v. YtannoplastLtd.,
(1986)1C.L.R.548). In the light of the foregoing we have decided to uphold the decision ofthetrialcourttoallowtheamendment ofthe statement ofdefence bytheadditionofnewparagraphs 1,2,3 and4and the consequential renumbering ofitsalreadyexistingparagraphs. 15 We have, however, been satisfied by the appellant that the decision of the trial court toallow the amendment of the existing paragraphs 4 and 6 and the addition of two new paragraphs, 12 and 13, to the statement of defence is the product of a wrong exerciseofthe relevantdiscretionary powers,especially assucha 20 course willresult ininjustice tothe appellant. Likewise, we have, for the same reason, decided that there should not have been allowed the addition to the statement of defence of a counterclaim, especially as the relief claimed by itis being sought, also,byanother action (No.4043/83 inthe District 25 Court of Limassol) which was filed in the meantime by the respondenttothisappeal. Inthe resultthisappeal isallowed inevery respect except inso farasitrelatestothenewparagraphs1,2,3, and4ofthestatement of defence, inrelation towhich itisdismissed. 30 Eachsidetobear itsown costsofthisappeal. Appeal allowed as above. Eachside tobearits own costs of the appeal. 81