KAMALESAN Vs. PRAKASAM & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the revision petitioner, the petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.115 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddypatti for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The respondents filed written statement on 16.11.2016. In the aforesaid suit, the revision petitioner has filed an application in IA.No.799 of 2012 under Order 6, Rule 17 to amend the plaint as well as cause of action and prayer in the aforesaid suit. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents, by considering the objection of the respondents, the court below has dismissed the application. Challenging the aforesaid order, the revision petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that Advocate Commissioner has submitted the report. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has filed the present application for amendment in the aforesaid suit. If the said application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. Without considering the contention of the revision petitioner, erroneously dismissed the instant application. Therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the aforesaid suit is of the year 2005 and the trial was commenced on 03.08.2012. At the time of examination of PW2, the present application has been filed to amend the averments, cause of action and prayer in the suit suit, hence the same is not maintainable. In the light of the amended provisions under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the order of the court below is perfectly valid. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.