M. Thankraj vs M. Paul Raj

M. Venugopal, J.—The revision petitioner has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 25.02.2009 in I.A. No. 673 of 2008

in O.S. No. 217 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff

under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. praying to amend the plaint for the relief of mandatory injunction.

The trial court, while passing orders in I.A. No. 673 of 2008 in O.S. No. 217 of 2007, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled

to remove the same by way of mandatory injunction, provided that he is able to establish his right over the suit property. If the amendment is not

allowed, multiplicity of the proceedings would arise, which is not desirable and resultantly, allowed the application without costs.

According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, the trial court''s order passed in I.A. No. 673 of 2008 in O.S. No. 217

of 2007 suffers from material irregularities and that the application praying for amendment of plaint, ought to have been dismissed by the trial court,

holding that the same is a belated one and further, the trial court has ignored the fact that the amendments sought for will change the character of

the suit and moreover, the cause of action also will change and that the trial court has not taken into account an another fact that the revision

petitioner/defendant has put up construction in the property, which he has obtained under partition deed, to which, the respondent/plaintiff is a

party and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.

It is to be noted that in an application praying for an amendment of plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. normally, the court will not

enter into the merits and demerits of the matter in issue. The object of an amendment is to resolve the real question in dispute to be raised on the

pleadings. Allowing an amendment or refusing the same is a discretionary relief to be given to a court of law and in this regard, the court has got

wide powers in allowing the application for amendment to secure the ends of justice. However, the rider will be that no amendment shall be

allowed by a court of law, which will introduce a new and different case. Further, an amendment will not be generally disallowed except where a

time barred claim is sought to be introduced. In pretrial amendments especially a court of law will have to be liberal in allowing an application for

amendment to present aberration of justice.

On a careful consideration of the arguments advanced on the side of the revision petitioner and on going through the order passed by the trial

court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has exercised its discretionary power in a proper and efficacious manner and

resultantly, allowed the I.A. No. 673 of 2008 in O.S. No. 217 of 2007, dated 25.02.2009 to prevent plurality of proceedings and in that view of

the matter, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed in the interest of justice.

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial court in I.A. No. 673 of 2008 in O.S. No. 217 of 2007, dated

25.02.2009 is confirmed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there

shall be no order as to costs. It is open to the revision petitioner/defendant to file subsequent pleadings as per Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. and the

trial court shall permit the same in the interest of justce.