It is the petitioners case that he has filed the above suit for Partition in O.S.No.203 of 2013 in respect of the suit properties. The respondents as defendants filed their written statement denying the case of the revision petitioner and as well as disputed the extent of property.
2.During course of Trial, the revision petitioner sought for an amendment of plaint in as much as introducing New Sub division number claiming as to the Original Survey number was sub-divided. The application was contested by the respondents by filing a counter and after considering the petition and counter the court below erroneously dismissed the application vide the impugned order dated 22.08.2013 on the ground of delay and as well as holding a Post- Trial amendment in a suit is impermissible.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the delay alone cannot be a ground for dismissal of amendment application. The court ought to have seen that the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the issues involved in the suit and the petition has to be allowed so as to render substantial justice instead of denying the amendment, which will result in multiplicity of litigation. Accordingly he prayed to allow the instant Civil Revision Petition.
4.Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend the plaint at a belated stage, that too after commencement of Trial. The fact remains the suit was filed in the year 2010 and the petition for amendment filed after delay of 3 years, as such the Trial Court has rightly dismissed application and same does not warrant any interference.
5.I heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the entire records. No representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
6.The records disclose that the petitioner seek for an amendment of survey number to introduce new Survey number by replacing the Old / Original undivided Survey number. The said nature of amendment sought for by the petitioner would certainly neither change the nature of the suit nor introduce a new case.
7.More so, it do not amount to withdrawal of any admission made in the course of Trial. Though the petition has been filed after examination of witness, in my considered opinion, the proposed amendment will not introduce a new case contrary to the plaint, but merely would be a replacement of a sub divided survey number.
8.Again this Court is of the opinion that if the amendment is not allowed it may adversely affect the identity of properties and extent in case of the revision petitioner succeeding the suit. It is also equally important to note that the instant suit being the one for partition it would also serve the defendants case in case of entitlement of his share proportionately. On the other hand the same would also avoid multiplicity of litigations.
9.In the result:
a) the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, by setting aside the order and decree made in I.A.No.320 of 2013 in O.S.No.203 of 2013 dated 22.08.2013 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode;
b) the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, is hereby directed to permit the petitioners / plaintiffs to amend the plaint as sought for in the petition.
c) After filing the amended plaint, the respondents are granted time to file additional written statement, if any. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.06.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 09.10.2018 vs Index : Yes Internet : Yes To The Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs Pre-delivery order made in C.R.P.(PD) No.4706 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 19.06.2017