ANANDHI Vs. JAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint in a suit for permanent injunction was rejected by the trial Court. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) Sri Shivaprakasam. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be interfered with. He submits that the application has been made seeking amendment and by relying on the application he contends that what is sought to the amended is the subsequent events which are necessary for the just and final adjudication of the case.

(3.) On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I'am of the considered view that there are no grounds made out to entertain this petition. In the affidavit itself it has been stated that what is sought for by way of amendment is nothing more than subsequent events. To bring to the notice of the Court the subsequent events of the suit, cannot be done through an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC. Further, there is no reasoning recorded in the affidavit as to why the said amendment could not have been made at the earlier point of time. Except narrating the subsequent events no other grounds have been urged with regard to the non-mentioning of the contents of the amendment at the earlier point of time. I find no error committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application. The petition being devoid of merits is rejected. No costs.