RAMESH RAMANUJAM Vs. VARADAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision is filed challenging the order dated 23. 7. 2004 passed by the VI Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C. M. P. No. 615 of 2004 in A. S. No. 36 of 2003 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners herein seeking to amend the plaint.

(2.) THE petitioners herein have filed a suit in O. S. No. 4589 of 1990 on the file of the First Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai claiming the relief for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs of the suit B schedule property. The suit was dismissed on 19. 9. 2002. One of the reasons among the other reasons for the dismissal of the suit was that the plaintiffs have not chosen to claim declaration of title in the suit property. Under the said circumstances, the application to amend the plaint was filed during the pendency of the appeal in A. S. No. 36 of 2003. Even though the appeal was filed during the month of December, 2002, but later on numbered as A. S. No. 36 of 2003. The subsequent application seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed on 5. 4. 2004, which was dismissed, against which the above revision has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners would contend that the plaintiffs are possessed with voluminous documentary evidence right from the year 1950 onwards and inasmuch as the trial court has dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no prayer seeking declaration of the title, they should be permitted to amend the plaint, since it would not cause any prejudice to the respondents herein. Accordingly, to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, the court below ought to have permitted the petitioners herein to amend the plaint. Inasmuch as no new cause of action arose and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and considering the fact that the Apex Court has rendered various decisions to the effect that the party should be permitted to amend the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioners is unsustainable in law. Learned counsel would also add that even though the present application has been filed subsequent to the amendment, which came into effect on 1. 7. 2002 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the position of law is not altered and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to amend the plaint during the pendency of the appeal. It is also contended that the appeal filed by the plaintiffs is nothing, but a continuation of the proceedings already instituted by way of suit and as such there is no embargo on the plaintiffs to amend the plaint even at the stage of appeal.