K. MAYAKANNAN Vs. S. ELUMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 and 2 are the revision petitioners herein. The first respondent as plaintiff filed O.S.No. 373 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Villupuram, seeking for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint only in respect of the description of the property referred to in the plaint schedule. The said application was resisted by the first defendant. The trial Court allowed the application by holding that it is pre-trial amendment and the defendants have not yet filed the written statement. The Court below further observed that granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-defendants 1 and 2.

(2.) Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the admission made by the plaintiff already in the original plaint cannot be permitted to be taken away by allowing the amendment. It is his further contention that while describing the suit property in the plaint schedule, the plaintiff has admitted that the suit property lies West of the property of the first defendant and that it measures about 15 feet East to West on the Northern side and 13-1/2 feet on the Southern side. Having made such description in the suit schedule, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to alter the same by way of amendment, as such alteration would amount to withdrawal of admission already made by the plaintiff. He further contended that the first defendant has also filed a suit in O.S.No. 110 of 2013 against the plaintiff in respect of the disputed 3 feet property wherein interim injunction is granted, and therefore, at this stage, the amendment ought not to have been allowed. He further submitted that at the most, the plaintiff can withdraw the present suit and file a proper suit and however, he is not entitled to file the amendment petition. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in : (S.Malla Reddy Vs Future Builders Coop. Housing Society, 2013 9 SCC 349) and the decisions of this Court reported in : (Anthonysamy Vs Christoraj, 2013 4 CTC 443) and : CDJ 2013 MHC 2875 = : 2013 (3) MWN (Civil) 13 (D.Lalitha and others Vs Rangasan and others).

(3.) Per contra, Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that there is no admission made by the plaintiff as contended by the defendants. What is sought to be amended is only the boundaries and extent, that too in the description of the suit property in the plaint schedule. He further submitted that as the amendment is sought to be made at the pre-trial stage, the Court has rightly allowed the amendment, since pre-trial amendments are to be liberally considered and allowed. The defendants have not filed written statement so far, and therefore, their right is not at all prejudiced in any manner. Even if they have filed the written statement, yet they are entitled to file the additional written statement in pursuant to the amendment. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff is supported by the suit documents filed already along with the original plaint, and therefore, the plaintiff has not introduced any new case.