CHINTHALA MUNASWAMI Vs. VENGAL NARASIMHNLN CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The amendment of the plaint having been asked for and granted, the defendant has preferred this revision petition challenging the order granting the amendment. The suit was laid for damages on the basis of the pleading that the usufruct of certain trees belonging to the plaintiff has been unjustly removed by the defendant. At the conclusion of the trial, an application had been made for declaration of title to the trees. The amendment had been granted by the lower Court.

(2.) The main contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the application is belated and ought not to have been granted. He drew my attention to J. Anantha v. J. Bapanna Rao, Chandra Reddy, C.J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Division Bench relied upon a ruling in Vedachala Chettiar v. Ameena Bi Animal, and observed as follows : "Unless there are good and proper reasons an amendment of plaint, or written statement should not be allowed after the case is closed. In Vedachala Chettiar v. Ameena Bi Ammal when the plaintiff's evidence was about to be concluded, one of the defendants sought leave of the Court for amendment of one of the issues by inserting some words and that defendant succeeded in inducing the trial Court to make that amendment." The learned Judge then set out the observations in the Madras case which disapproved of the practice of granting belated amendments.

(3.) It is true that the delay in making the amendment is a factor that is bound to be taken into consideration. It is also pertinent to consider whether the granting of the amendment of the plaint prejudices the defendant in the conduct of his defence. In the instant case, the position is that the claim for damages can succeed only on proof of title of the plaintif to the trees. The new relief for declaration that is sought by the plaintiff therefore, rests upon the proof of the same facts as were necessary for sustaining the prayer for damages. I am, therefore, of opinion that although the amendment had been applied for at a late stage, the case on hand comes within the exception to the rule envisaged by Chandra Reddy, C.J. It is not as though in the case of belated applications for amendments, the Courts should in all cases shut out the suitors from seeking the amendments. Each case must depend on its own facts and in the case on hand I see no prejudice to the defendants by the application having been granted. The Criminal Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. If, however, as a result of the amendment the plaintiffs seek to adduce further evidence, they will be allowed to do so only on payment of costs Rs. 50 to the defendant. Subject to this direction, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision dismissed.