JEYA Vs. SUNDARAM IYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant, who was unsuccessful before the trial court in resisting the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) ON 4. 8. 2002, the plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit in O. S. No. 110 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchendur for declaration that the debt borrowed on mortgage, dated 7. 2. 1996, is discharged in view of the deposit of the amount of Rs. 10,000/= i. e. for redemption, which was opposed, contending that the documents relied on by the plaintiff, are inadmissible in evidence. When the case was posted for judgment, after the closure of evidence, the plaintiff has filed I. A. No. 33 of 2004, to amend the plaint, in order to include the prayer for recovery of possession, which was allowed on 6. 2. 2004. Thereafter, the learned Additional District Munsif, hearing both sides, adjourned the case to 22. 3. 2004 for judgment and just two days before the judgment is to be pronounced, another application, to amend the plaint, was filed in I. A. No. 126 of 2004, which was opposed, contending that the proposed amendment is impermissible under law, if allowed, that will not only change the basic structure of the case, but also would change the character and nature of the claim also. Despite objections, the learned Additional District munsif, in her detailed order, seeking aid from the rulings of this Court, as quoted by either counsel, and considering the dominant purpose of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, came to the conclusion that in order to solve the problems between the parties, in the same suit, the proposed amendment should be permitted. But, at the same time, because of the inordinate delay and the stage of the petition filed, she allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/=, which is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) IT is an admitted position, as recorded by the trial court also, that the written statement was filed on 19. 3. 2003, that the trial was commenced on 3. 9. 2003, that after the closure of the evidence, the case was posted for the judgment. IT appears, the Court, suo motu, reopened the case and taking advantage of the same, probably, the plaintiff had filed an application in I. A. No. 33 of 2004, to amend the plaint, in order to include a prayer for recovery of possession, which was allowed on 6. 2. 2004. The learned Additional district Munsif, after allowing the said amendment application, hearing both, adjourned the case for pronouncing the judgment to 22. 3. 2004. Just two days prior to the judgment to be pronounced, on 19. 3. 2004, the present amendment petition was filed, aiming to include more prayer, more or less changing the nature of the suit, the fact being the original suit was for redemption and the amendment, now sought for, is for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Thus, it is seen, only after the commencement of the trial, the amendment application has been filed, thereby bringing this amendment application within the four walls of Order 6 Rule 17 proviso, which came into force on and from 1. 7. 2002, thereby making the proviso applicable, and there cannot be any dispute in this regard also.