The plaintiff in O.S.No.107/2007 is the revision petitioner. He filed the said suit against the respondents for declaring that the suit schedule property is nominally purchased in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 from out of the amounts received by defendant Nos.1 and 3 from him and for granting permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 and persons claiming through them from in any manner alienating the suit schedule properties.

The plea of the petitioner was that he has in all paid Rs.3,20,45,826-50 ps. to defendant Nos.1 to 3 for purchase of properties in his name and that the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 nominally from out of the monies advanced by him. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1913/2008 on 26-12-2008 before the court of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, seeking amendment of the pleadings and the prayer in the suit. The said application was transferred to the court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati and the same was renumbered as I.A.No.504/2010. The petitioner sought for amendment of the plaint by adding para Nos.7(a) to (d) and certain additions to paras 10 and 11. The petitioner also sought for additional relief of directing respondent Nos.1 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.2,88,19,538/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. The said application was resisted by the respondents. The lower court, by order dated 30-3-2011 dismissed the said application. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

I have heard Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent.

While it is the pleaded case of the petitioner in the plaint, as originally presented, that from out of the amount advanced to defendant Nos.1 and 3, the property was purchased in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 nominally instead of in his name, in the application for amendment, the petitioner wanted the plaint to be amended to the effect that from out of the sum of Rs.3,20,45,826-50 advanced to defendant Nos.1 to 3, the property worth Rs.1,02,00,146/-was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and the property worth Rs.2,18,45,680/-was purchased in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 nominally. The petitioner therefore sought for amendment of the pleadings to that effect and also addition of prayer to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay him a sum of Rs.2,88,19,538/-. In the order under revision, the lower court observed that if the petitioner proves that he has paid the said amount to the defendants for purchasing property, he will succeed in the suit in obtaining the declaration as sought for by him and conversely if he fails to prove the same, his claim will be defeated. The court below further observed that the proposed amendment is only to insert additional pleading with regard to the details of the amounts which were already mentioned in the plaint and that the additional relief sought was only for recovery of the part of the amount allegedly advanced by the plaintiff to defendant Nos.1 and 2. Having so held, curiously, the court below has rejected the application for amendment by purporting to test the veracity of the pleas raised by the petitioner on merits.

Perhaps, the earliest of Judgments on the law governing amendment of pleadings, is in Tidesley Vs. Harper (1978) 10 Ch.D. 393 : (1874-80) All.E.R. Rep.Ext 1612 (CA), wherein Bramwell, L.J., exemplifying his deep humility, rendered his opinion, as under:

"....I have had much to do in Chambers with applications for leave to amend, and I may perhaps be allowed to say that this humble branch of learning is very familiar to me. My practice has always been to give leave to amend unless I have been satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that, by his blunder, he had done some injury to his opponent which could not be compensated for by costs or otherwise."

In Cropp