MEENAMBAL ALIAS MEENA Vs. C SENTHILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/first respondent/first defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 23.06.2008 in I.A.No.7019 of 2008 in O.S.No.2826 of 2004 passed by the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the application filed by the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 16 and 17 of Civil Procedure Code praying for permission to amend the prayer in the suit.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.7019 of 2008, has inter alia opined that

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner cites the decision in D. Ramanujam V. R. Panneerselvam (2006 (3) CTC 27) wherein this Court has held that 'party seeking amendment should exercise due diligence and seek for such amendment before commencement of trial and even before trial of suit commenced party had enough opportunity etc.' He also relies on the decision in Jeya V. Sundaram Iyyar (2005) 4 M.L.J. 278) whereby this Court has held that 'unless inspite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial, proposed amendment at the stage of pronouncing the judgment is disallowed.' Yet another decision in S. Ahamed Meeran and others V. S. Kumaraswamy (2006 (1) CTC 55) is relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, wherein this Court has inter alia held that 'liberal approach cannot be expected when amendment is sought after commencement of trial and that plaintiff knew fully well that title was disputed and yet did not file any application to amend plaint for well over 2 years and waited for trial to conclude and arguments to begin and facts and circumstances of the case clearly shows that amendment cannot be ordered and it cannot be compensated in terms of cost and order allowing amendment suffers from material irregularity and order allowing amendment is set aside.' THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner presses into service the decision in R.N. Jadi and Brothers and Others V. Subhashchandra (2007) 6 SCC 420 at page 421) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that 'the observance of time schedule contemplated by Order 8 Rule 1 shall be the rule and departure therefrom an exception, made for satisfactory reasons only etc.'