NATARAJSWAMY Vs. GNENAMBAL ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the petitioner in these revisions.- C.R.P. No. 3388 of 1990 is against the order passed in I.A. No. 45 of 1990 in A.S. No. 46 of 1990. C.R.P. No. 3389 of 1990 is against the order passed in I.A. No. 46 of 1990 in A.S. No. 47 of 1990. Before the appellate Court, the plaintiff/ respondent herein filed the said petitions for amendment under O. 6, R. 17, C.P.C. In the trial Court the suits were filed to recover the amounts due on the promissory notes. The suits were dismissed since the promissory notes are not properly stamped. As against the judgments of the trial court, the plaintiff' filed the above said two appeals before the first appellate court. In the first appellate court, the plaintiff sought for the amendment of the prayer portion of the plaints so as to enable the plaintiff to sue on original cause of action. This amendment was allowed by the first appellate court, in both the appeals. As against these orders, the present revisions were preferred by the defendant.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein submitted that the lower court was not correct in allowing the amendment as prayed for in view of the decision of this court reported in (1938) 2 MLJ 189 : (AIR 1938 Madras 785) Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshi Ammal Uller Bench. This decision was also followed in 1990 TLNJ 49 Nachimuthu Gounder v. Chinnappa Gounder. Therefore, it was submitted that it is not open to the plaintiff to proceed on the original cause of action by way of amending the plaints at the appellate stage.

(3.) On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in view of the full bench decision of this court rendered in the case of Kasi Visvanandha Mudaliar v. V. A. Kuppuswami Naidu and two others, (1936) 71 MLJ 250 : (AIR 1936 Madras 785) the lower court was perfectly justified in allowing the amendment.