KAIROON BI Vs. NAGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff in o. S. No. 351 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif , Chinglepet.

(2.) THE respondents/defendants filed an application under order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. to amend the written statement on the ground that mistake had crept in in the written statement filed by the first defendant, who is no more. It is the specific contention of the defendants that the plaintiff did not purchase the property as claimed by her.

(3.) IT has been uniformly held by this Court and also by the Apex Court that the power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. If the amendment is allowed, the opposite party would be given an opportunity to file the objections by way of reply statement/additional written statement. The lower Court has not shut the said opportunity. In fact, it has been observed by the lower Court that it is left open to the respondents to file their rejoinder, if any, if so adviced. As such, I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court, which warrants interference by this Court.