KOTHANDARAMA PILLAI Vs. VARADHARAJU DASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 12.5.1998 in I.A.No.100 of 1996 in A.S.No.74 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pudukottai.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the 8th respondent before the first appellate Court and 8th defendant in the suit. The first respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property from the respondents 2 to 10 and the revision petitioner/8th defendant in the suit. The learned District Munsif, Pudukottai dismissed the suit and thereupon, the aggrieved plaintiff preferred the appeal before the first appellate Court. Pending disposal of the appeal, the plaintiff filed the application in I.A.No.100 of 1996 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint for an alternative relief of redemption of Othi in respect of the suit 'B' schedule property. The lower appellate Court after analysing the pleadings and arguments advanced on either side allowed the petition on condition of payment of Rs.1,000/- to the contesting respondents and since the condition was complied with, the amendment was ordered as prayed for. Hence the revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that since the proposed amendment introduced entirely different cause of action, inasmuch as the same is barred by limitation, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on the decisions, SHRIMONI GURDWARA COMMITTEE v. JASWANT SINGH (1996 (II) S.C.C. 690); HEERALAL v. KALYAN MAL (1998 (I) S.C.C. 278).