RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. PATTU AMLMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.33 of 2001 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram is the petitioner in both the revision petitions. He filed two petitions (i) I.A.No.449 of 2003 for amendment of the plaint and (ii) I.A.No.695 of 2003 seeking permission to file reply statement. By order dated 23.01.2004, the learned Subordinate Judge, after finding that the amendment sought for, if allowed, would change the cause of action, dismissed I.A.No.449 of 2003. In view of the dismissal of the said application, the learned Sub Judge dismissed I.A.No.695 of 2003 also. Challenging both the orders, the plaintiff has filed the above revision petitions.

(2.) HEARD Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sankaravadivelu, learned counsel for the contesting respondents 3 to 5.

(3.) EVEN after amendment of Code of Civil Procedure, as held by the Apex Court in Second Salem Bar Association vs. Union of India (2005 (6) SCC 344), if the amendment sought for is not going to change the entire cause of action and if there is no illegality therein and such petition is filed not to delay the trial, generally the amendment sought for has to be considered.