Petitioner is the plaintiff. Present revision petition is filed challenging the order passed on 26.02.2014 in I.A.No.1104 of 2013 in O.S.No.120 of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode. The suit is for a declaration and consequential injunction and during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application inorder to amend the plaint. The Trial Court rejected the same on the ground that the amendment sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff is contrary to the descriptions available in Ex.P1, Sale Deed and further averred that the plaint description of the property is for a larger extent and the amendment sought for is to restrain the claim into half share. In view of such contradictions, the Trial Court rejected the petition seeking amendment of plaint.
2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that it is the suit for declaration and injunction and the amendment sought for is only to restrict the claim made out under the original sale deed and the same will not alter the nature of the suit. Further, the trial of the suit has not yet been commenced and pre-trial amendments are quite likely to be made and the Courts cannot restrict the pre-trial amendments in view of the clear provision of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contention by stating that the petitioner has not come out with clean hands and the plaint was filed with ambiguity. The description of the property set out in the plaint are not in accordance with the document filed before the court, more specifically Ex.P1, Sale Deed. Since the description of the property is not in accordance the Sale Deed filed in Ex.P1, the amendment is also default and the same cannot be allowed. The counsel for the respondent further contended that the trial court has rightly considered these aspects and rejected the petition seeking amendment. By filing the present revision petition, the petitioner wanted to improvise his case which cannot be permitted and hence, this revision deserves no consideration.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. I have perused the materials placed before me. It is clear that the amendment sought for should not alter the nature of the suit. In the case on hand it is only a restriction of prayer by the petitioner/plaintiff and the rival claim in respect of the property is sought tobe restricted and therefore, the same will not alter the nature of the suit. It is seen that the trial has not S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
smi yet been commenced and pre-trial amendments in the plaint are to be liberally granted by the Courts. It is also to be noted that the respondent authorities had not made any attempt to challenge the nature of the suit and hence, the relevancy of the amendment is to be considered. Hence, this court is of the view that the reasons set out by the trial court is not sufficient. Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.1104 of 2013 in O.S.No.120 of 2011 is set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.