CHINNAPILLAI Vs. ANGAPPA UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No. 1000 of 1990 are the petitioners herein who have filed the above Civil Revision Petition praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 13.06.1996 made in 1. A. No. 423 of 1996 in the said suit by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Salem.

(2.) IN fact, the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition who are the plaintiffs in the suit have filed the petition in I.A. No. 423 of 1996 before the court below under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC praying to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint and the said petition having come to be dismissed with costs, the petitioners therein have come forward to institute the above revision on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, it is a case in which the amendment has been sought for at rather early stage and before the trial and the same was not pending trial. Any amendment sought for during trial would not have been termed at rather early stage so as to apply the norms of the above judgment to the facts of the present case. Here is a case in which the specific allegation of the respondents is that the petitioner after letting in evidence and during cross examination having admitted certain facts regarding the suit property and to overcome the evidence recorded which is against his interest, has with ulterior motives, come forward to file the amendment petition and hence on such specific allegations since the amendment is opposed by the other side, the first judgment cited above is not the answer and, therefore, the norms observed therein cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.