LAKSHMI Vs. PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING and impugning the order dated 01.10.2008 passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri in I.A.No.662 of 2008 in O.S.No.233 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) A summation and summarization of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.233 of 2005 seeking the following reliefs:TamilThe defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement. The matter was posted for trial. When the trial commenced on plaintiff's side, I.A.No.662 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting amended the plaint in respect of the prayer column as well as certain description of properties. After hearing both the sides, the lower Court dismissed the I.A. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been focussed on various grounds, inter alia thus:The lower Court simply took the view that as per Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after the commencement of trial, there should not be any amendment and that there was no good reason for allowing the amendment the lower Court also failed to note that the averments in the affidavit accompanying the said I.A that the entire C schedule property belongs to the plaintiff in view of the fact that already there was a gift deed dated 21.04.2003 executed by D1 donating half of the C scheduled property in favour of the plaintiff and the remaining half share belongs to the plaintiff as the sharer. Accordingly, she prayed for setting aside the order of the lower court and for allowing the I.A.

(3.) NO doubt, a plain reading of the said precedent would highlight and spotlight that as per the amended Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court should not allow amendments of the plaint in a casual manner and there should be valid reasons. Here, in the affidavit accompanying the I.A, as set out supra, the petitioner has clearly spelt out certain reasons that by virtue of the gift deed dated 21.04.2003 she became the owner of the half share in the "C" scheduled property and that she is the owner of the remaining half share by virtue of the fact that she is the co-sharer. In these pleas of the plaintiff, mixed question of law and fact is involved and only during trial finally, the contention of the plaintiff could be adjudged. However, in view of the ex-facie and prima facie, contentious pleas put forth by the plaintiff, the lower court could have very well allowed the I.A. But, it simply felt as though no valid reasons has been set out for allowing the I.A. The lower Court observed that reasons have also not been stated for getting corrected the description of property. However, in the proposed amendment itself in the paras to be added in the plaint, the petitioner portrayed and parodied that some mistakes crept in while describing the property in the schedules to the plaint. The plaintiff being the dominus litis should be given ample opportunity to make suitable amendments and it is for her to prove her case, ultimately to achieve and attain success in the litigative process.