GOMATHI AMMAL Vs. G KUTHALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the the Order and Decree dated 19.2.2003 made in I.A.No.456 of 2002 in O.S.No.730 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, allowing the Petition for amendment filed under Or.6 R.17 CPC on payment of cost of Rs.200/-. The Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) THE Plaintiff and Sixth Defendant are related as under: - Ponnusamy Pillai | Ganesa Subramanian (D1) = Gangammal | | ---------------------------------------- | | Ponnusamy Kuthalakrishnan D-6 Plaintiff

(3.) I.A.No.456 of 2002:- At this stage, the Plaintiff has filed the Amendment Petition under Or.6 R.17 CPC seeking to amend the Plaint prayer by including, 'after the words "(B) schedule properties" the following words to be added "by setting aside the sale deed dated 27. 12.1972 executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of late Krishna Naidu in respect of the Plaintiff and 6th Defendant's right over the 'B' schedule property'. In the said Petition, the Plaintiff has referred to the Additional Written Statement filed on 12.12.2001, wherein the Defendants have raised a plea that without setting aside the Sale Deed, the suit is not maintainable and to avoid the technical difficulties, it is necessary to amend the Plaint prayer. The amendment Petition was resisted on the ground that the amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed, since the claim is time barred. It has been further averred that the proposed amendment would deprive the Defendants, the statutory defence and the valuable right accrued under the Limitation Act. Further the proposed amendment would completely alter the character and features of the suit and hence the amendment cannot be ordered.