SIVAKUMAR SILUVAMPALAYAM Vs. BALASUBRAMANIAM SILUVAMPALAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge at Sankari made in I.A. No: 537 of 2011 in O.S. No: 33 of 2006 dated 23.09.2011.

(2.) THE revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit is filed for a decree in favour of the plaintiff in cancelling the partition deed dated 27.02.2006 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants as void, inoperative and does not divest the absolute title of the plaintiff in the suit properties and for a permanent injunction against the defendants from trespassing into the suit properties and causing interference to plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering and to carry on mutation proceedings in respect of the suit properties till the disposal of the suit. On completion of the pleadings, the matter was proceeded with trial. Evidence was let in and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the respondent / plaintiff has filed an application in I.A. No: 537 of 2011 to amend the plaint in respect of the suit schedule property by including large extent of lands with so many survey numbers. This amendent application was resisted by the revision petitioners by filing a counter stating that the suit was posted for arguments and their counsel had submitted his arguments and, therefore, the amendment at that stage cannot be ordered and if so ordered, that will definitely prejudice the very conclusion of the proceedings.

(3.) MR. P. Valliappan learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assails the order of the trial Court on various grounds. He submits that the amendment was allowed at the stage of arguments which not only causes prejudice to the revision petitioners personally it would delay the conclusion of the proceedings as well. It is his further submission that under proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of the due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 SAR (Civil) 169 ( J. Samuel and Others vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others ). Learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to an order earlier made by this Court in C.R.P. ( P.D. ) Nos: 2650 and 2651 of 2011 dated 25.07.2011, which arose from this very same Original Suit, wherin while dismissing those C.R.Ps., this Court expressed its concern that the trial is being delayed unnecessarily.