PALANISAMY Vs. K PALANIAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 14.12.2008, passed by the learned District Munsif Court of Mettupalayam, in I.A.No,763 of 2006 in O.S.No.142 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) WHEREAS the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would contend that trial has not yet been commenced, there was change of counsel, whereupon the new counsel after going through the plaint came to understand that there are errors in the plaint prepared by the earlier counsel, whereupon only I.A.No,763 of 2006 was came to be filed. The cause of action is not changed by the proposed amendment and for the purpose of comprehensively deciding the lis only such amendment was sought under three sale deeds as revealed by the averments in paragraph 11 of the plaint the suit property was purchased instead of clearly setting out the details of the property in the schedule of the original plaint, in a clumsy way the property was described, which alone warranted the new counsel for the plaintiff to file such an application and the lower Court correctly understood the ramification of the proposed amendment and allowed it and that too on cost, which warrants no interference.