JAGANANTHAN Vs. KANNAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. Mathivanan, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the defendant challenging the order passed by the trial court allowing the petition filed by the plaintiff for amending the plaint.

(3.) THE order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment petition is being challenged in this revision petition by the defendant mainly on the ground that such amendment which was sought after the period of limitation should not have been allowed. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on NATARAJSWAMY v. GNENAMBAL (AIR 1992 Mad. 25) S. KUPPUSAMY v. P.K. SUBRAMANI & OTHERS (2005 [4] CTC 734) as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. ALLOY FOUNDRY CO. LTD. v. T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS (2004 [2] CTC 637).