DEIVENDRAN Vs. SUBBIAH NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This revision has been filed against the order of allowing amendment application.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on Palaniappan and other v. Govindaraj and others, 2005 (2) CTC 282, and submitted that when the respondent's case is that they had 1/3rd share in the property and the petitioner had 2/3rd share, it is not open to them to change the whole case by amendment, according to which, the respondents now want to plead to case that they have 2/3rd share and the petitioner had 1/3rd share in the property. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not just in the plaint that this mistake is said to be crept in, but even in the proof of affidavit and in all other pleadings, the same case was projected by the respondents, which is now altered after the trial has commenced.

(3.) IN Palaniappan and other v. Govindaraj and others, 2005 (2) CTC 282, this Court dismissed the revision, which was filed against the dismissal of an application to amend the plaint. It is held therein that after the amendment of C.P.C., there can be no amendment after the commencement of trial unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence, the parties could not have raised the plea before the commencement of the trial.