B RANGANAYAKI Vs. C SENTHILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/second respondent/second defendant has preferred the civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 23.06.2008 in I.A.No.7019 of 2008 in O.S.No.2826 of 2004 on the file of First Assistant 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 'even though the learned counsel for respondents had contended that the issue of limitation is also be considered while allowing such prayer this Court is of the considered view to follow the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court that the procedural law is hand maid of justice and in order to render substantial justice it is necessary to amend the prayer alone without amending the pleading which will not prejudice the respondents in any way. In order to protect the interest of the respondents the liberty is given to the respondents to raise the issue of limitation during the trial and resultantly, allowed the application without costs.'

(3.) IN the counter filed by the revision petitioner/ second respondent/second defendant, it is inter alia mentioned that the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has been aware of the fact that the suit property has been sold to him by the first defendant even prior to the filing of the suit and therefore, the first respondent/petitioner cannot seek amendment of prayer and that too for inclusion of new relief and that the trial in the suit is almost completed and that the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has examined two witnesses and they were cross examined and that the evidence of second defendant as D.W.2 has already commenced and as such, the application has been filed belatedly and therefore, the same is not maintainable.