MATHIAS Vs. T.ANITHA MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.158 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, by allowing the petition seeking amendment of plaint after commencement of trial.

(2.) The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.158 of 2013 pending on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, which was filed by the first respondent/ plaintiff for recovery of money. The petitioner has filed the written statement and issues were framed and trial had also commenced and at that stage, the first respondent /plaintiff had filed a petition seeking amendment of plaint and the trial Court by a cryptic docket order dtd. 2/9/2021, without any reasoning and without giving an opportunity to file the counter, allowed the same.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the impugned order is hit by proviso to Rule 17 Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge without there being any finding as to due diligence as contemplated under proviso to Rule 17 order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, has allowed the amendment petition.