S. Arumugam and Others vs Sathy

S. Vimala, J.—As against the order of dismissal of the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of pleadings by the

learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram in I.A. No. 373 of 2011 in O.S. No. 50 of 2006 dated 18.8.2011, the petitioners have filed this Civil

Revision Petition. The revision petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S. No. 50 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram,

seeking the relief of declaration and recovery of possession.

Denying the allegations in the suit, the respondent/defendant has filed a written statement.

During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners herein have filed a petition in I.A. No. 373 of 2011 in O.S. No. 50 of 2006 under Order

VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of pleadings. The respondent opposed the said petition.

On consideration of the rival contentions, the learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram dismissed the petitioner on the ground that the object of

the petitioner is only to protract the proceedings. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, originally the suit was filed seeking the relief of declaration and recovery of possession and

consequent upon subsequent events, the plaint was sought to be amended introducing the dual relief of injunction in respect of one portion of the

property and seeking recovery of possession in respect of other portion of the property.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitting that the proposed amendment is necessary for highlighting the real controversy between the

parties, prayed to allow this petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision Usha Devi Vs.

Rijwan Ahamd and Others, .

The said amendment was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that after the commencement of recording of

evidence, the petitioners would not be at liberty to seek the amendment and if the amendment is allowed, it will give room for the petitioners to

protract the proceedings.

I have considered the submissions of either side.

Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. which deals with Amendment of pleadings is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:--

Amendment of Pleadings:- The Court may at any state of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on

such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in

controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite

of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

A perusal of the above said provision would go to show that the bar to allow amendment after the commencement of the trial is not absolute,

and it is only conditional. If the Court is convinced that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the

commencement of trial, it is open to the trial Court to allow the amendment. Moreover, the loss occasioned can always been compensated by

imposing suitable cost.

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that only because of the subsequent events, which took place after filing of the suit,

the revision petitioners/plaintiffs have been compelled to file the petition, seeking amendment. The said fact is not disputed.

In Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahmad and Others (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that it is open to the defendant to raise their objection in

regard to amended plaint by making any corresponding amendments in their written statement.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case, where the petition, seeking amendment of the plaint,

ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court, with liberty to the defendant to file additional written statement. When this course was suggested,

the learned counsel appearing on both sides fairly agreed to it. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of learned

District Munsif, Ramanathapuram in I.A. No. 373 of 2011 in O.S. No. 50 of 2006 dated 18.8.2011 is set aside and the petition seeking

amendment is allowed. After amendment, the Trial Court shall grant opportunity to the defendant to file additional written statement. Having regard

to the fact that the suit is of the year 2006, the Trial Court is further directed to dispose of the main suit itself on or before 30.6.2014. No costs.

Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2012 is closed.