So. Vaijanthi, through her Power of Attorney Agent, Chokkanathan vs Raghuraman @ Bharathi

The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 11.7.2000 made in I.A.No.479 of 1999 in O.S.No.86 of

1996 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga.

Today, when the above Civil Revision Petition was taken up for consideration, having been posted many a time in the past, only the learned

counsel for the petitioner is present and is ready to argue the matter and on the part of the respondent, absolutely no representation has been made

either by the respondent himself in person or by his counsel and therefore this Court is left with no option but to decide the above Civil Revision

Petition based on the arguments advanced on the part of the petitioner and the materials made available on record.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.86 of 1996 and she has filed the petition in I.A.No.479 of 1999 under Order 6, Rule 17 of the

C.P.C. praying thereby to permit her to amend the boundaries in the description of property in the plaint. From the affidavit filed in support of the

said petition before the lower court, it comes to be known that the petitioner has filed the suit for specific performance of the contract that in the

description of property certain minor irregularities have crept in because of oversight and due to typographical mistakes and moreover the names

of parties to the document have also not been properly stated and therefore it has become necessary on his part to amend the suit schedule of

properties suitably.

The lower court, having discussed the facts of the case and reproducing the description of property as set out in the plaint originally and giving

the description as sought to be amended in the interlocutory application would remark that what has been seen in Ex.A.2 as it has been averred in

the plaint and now as against the version of Ex.A.2 the description of property is sought to be amended in a different manner; that if the amendment

is allowed the identity of the property will be changed and a new cause of action will be introduced and therefore would not permit the petitioner to

amend the plaint as prayed for.

This court is not in agreement with the reasons assigned and the sentiments expressed by the lower court in its order. It is not at all necessary on

the part of the plaintiff nor is it incumbent for her to offer exactly the description of a property as given in a document as pointed out by the lower

court from Ex.A.2 in this case. The description of the property should be to the actual existence of the property and not as it as been described in

the document wherein also certain errors are susceptible to occur. Therefore, the court, prior to conducting the trial cannot presume that the

description of property offered in a document, say in this case Ex.A.2 to be the exact and correct description of the property and therefore

denying the opportunity for the petitioner to amend the plaint suitably is unreasonable.

Moreover once the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint especially regarding the boundaries in the suit schedule of property, immediately it

does not become an established fact and it is only subject to dissection by the other side during trial and therefore on a wider spectrum also the

lower court can arrive at its own conclusion of course in full consideration of not only the documents but also the oral evidence, particularly in

consideration of Ex.A.2 in this case. Therefore, no fear or apprehension need be entertained by the lower court on the face of the petitioner having

come forward to seek for an amendment of the suit schedule of properties regarding the description of boundaries of the same, which is only

subject to proof during trial. Hence, the apprehension expressed by the lower court that once the amendment is allowed to be carried out either it

will alter the structure of the plaint or change the cause of action introducing or changing the identity of the property is only a myth.

The upper forums of law have time and again insisted that amendments should be freely allowed to be carried out unless it is causing any

prejudice to the other side altering the structure of the very plaint or changing the cause of action. Moreover such amendments freely allowed

would curtail multiplicity of proceedings and therefore the amendment sought for in the case in hand which is the subject matter of the civil revision

petition being a formal amendment. The lower court should have allowed the application permitting the petitioner to carry out the amendment as

sought for in the petition.

In result, the above Civil Revision Petition succeeds and the same is allowed setting, aside the fair and decretal order dated 11.7.2000 made in

I.A.No.479 of 1999 in O.S.No.86 of 1996 by the court of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga.

However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, C.M.P.No. 13551 of 2000 is closed.