Natesan and Another vs Govindasami and Another

Sivasubramaniam, J.—By consent of parties, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

This revision petition is directed against the order passed in IA. 840 of 1987 in O.S.No. 2 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif''s Court,

Ariyalur. The petitioners herein filed the suit in O.S.No. 2 of 1988 for declaration of their title and for consequential relief of injunction. The suit

was resisted by the defendants-respondents contending that they are in possession of the property and they have prescribed title to the suit

property by adverse possession. It appears that after the suit was taken up for trial, the plaintiffs came forward with the petition in I.A.No. 840 of

1987 under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC to amend the plaint seeking the relief of possession in the place of the relief of injunction. It was resisted by the

defendants on the ground that the application is belated and there is absolutely no bona fides in the application.

Accepting the contentions of the respondents, the learned District Munsif dismissed the petition holding that the amendment cannot be allowed

after evidence has been let in. It is against this order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proposed amendment is not going to change the cause of action or the character of the

suit in any manner. What is required to be done is to pray for alternative relief of possession. In answer to the said contentions, Mr. Narasimhan,

learned Counsel for the respondents, vehemently contended that such an amendment should not be allowed after the evidence is practically over.

According to him, the application for amendment lacks bona fides and that it has been filed only to protract the proceedings. In support of his

contentions, learned Counsel relies on a decision of this Court reported in Gobi Pillai v. Doraiswami (1980) 1 M.LJ. 370 wherein this Court has

held that when the plaintiff had knowingly and designedly chosen to confine his relief on the basis of certain facts and had participated in a suit

which had come to the stage of closing of evidence, it was not necessary for a Court to take upon itself the task of finding out whether such a

plaintiff should be helped or assisting in avoiding his filing another suit for the other relief which he may not seek for by way of amendment. The

learned Judge has nowhere decided that the Court has no power to grant amendment. But what has been decided is that the Court should no

encourage a party to keep quiet till the end and then come forward with an amendment to put the other party by surprise. In the said judgment, the

learned Judge has carefully expressed his opinion by stating that he was satisfied on the facts of that case that the attempt to amend the plaint was

only to protract the proceedings and delay the disposal of the suit. It was only in those circumstances the learned Judge came to the conclusion that

the amendment should not be allowed. But however, in this case, I find that what is asked for by way of amendment is only an alternative prayer

for possession. This prayer becomes important because of the fact that possession is claimed by the defendants and in case the trial Court finds

that they are in possession, then the plaintiffs will be without any effective remedy. It is only to avoid such a contingency and to avoid multiplicity of

proceedings, the provisions in Order 6, Rule 7, CPC are intended. In this case, I am satisfied that the interests of the defendants are not going to

be prejudiced in any manner, since the proposed amendment does not charge the character of the suit in any manner. However, the petitioners

should compensate the respondents for having delayed the matter unduly. Therefore, this civil revision petition is allowed and the amendment

petition will stand allowed, on condition that the petitioners pay a sum of Rs. 200 to the respondents by way of costs incurred in contesting the

petition for amendment. Time for payment of costs, four weeks from this date. There will be no order as to costs in this civil revision petition.