Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

W.P. Nos. 18982 and 20179 of 2016 are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the questions of facts and law involved are similar in both the petitions.

2. The petitioner has called into question the order dated 23-4-2015 (Annexure-A) passed on I.A. No. 2 in O.S. No. 122 of 2004 renumbered as O.S. No. 868 of 2011. By the said order, the Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's I.A. for amending the plaint in O.S. No. 868 of 2011.

3. Smt. S.R. Anuradha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the I.A. for amendment is made even before the commencement of the trial. She submits that the Trial Court has erred in attributing eight years delay to the petitioner. She submits that in the instant case, the cause of action for seeking the amendment of the plaint has accrued to the petitioner only on 7-3-2012 on which date O.S. No. 122 of 2004 renumbered as O.S. No. 868 of 2011 was clubbed with the respondent's O.S. No. 1455 of 2006. She submits that if the amendment application is not allowed, it would only lead to the multiplicity of proceedings. She submits that if the impugned order dismissing the petitioner's appli