SAIPUNNISHA Vs. P. CHELLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.338 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:

(3.) It is the specific contention of the civil revision petitioner that the amendment was necessitated only because the defendants have done some alteration in violation of the order of injunction. The law is settled that if anyone does something in violation of Court order, the Court has got inherent discretionary power to set right and to restore status-quo ante. In this case, when the petitioner has raised a serious issue about the conduct of the defendants and filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, the application for amendment, which is necessitated only because of the illegal activity alleged to have been committed by the defendants, the Court cannot dismiss the application, merely on the ground that the petitioner has filed the petition after commencement of trial. The merits of the petition depends upon various factors. In this case, absolutely, there is nothing to doubt the bona fide of the revision petitioner / plaintiff, who has filed the petition for amendment, which is stated to have been filed after the defendants have done something in violation of Court's order. Since, the relief in the petition by way of amendment may pave way for restoration of status-quo, the Court cannot ignore the factual basis and gave a finding that the petition was belated and it was filed after the commencement of trial, which has no relevance to consider the present application for amendment. In a case where amendment of pleading is due to change of circumstances or due to subsequent events, unless there is undue delay, the petition cannot be thrown out on the ground that petition is after the commencement of trial.