The question involved in these Writ Petitions is whether the plaintiff in a suit can be allowed to amend the plaint after the evidence on his side is closed. These Writ Petitions came up for admission on 10.2.2009. The question involved being the same, as agreed by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In W.P.(C) No.4270 of 2009, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the application for amendment of the plaint by amending the description of the plaint schedule property. The court below allowed the application, which is under challenge in the Writ Petition. The plaint schedule property is a pathway leading to the plaintiffs residential compound. The plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiffs as per a registered document of the year 1981. The property of the first defendant lies on the northern and western side of the plaint schedule property. It is stated that the pathway starts from the north-eastern corner of an extent of 30 cents of land. In the document of title also, the property is similarly described. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the plaint schedule property. The first plaintiff stated in the affidavit accompanying the application for amendment that the pathway starts from the north-western corner of the 30 cents of land and not from the north-eastern side. He came to know of the mistake in the title deed and in the plaint schedule only when he was cross examined by the defendants on 11.2009. The plaintiffs filed the application on 21.2009 for amendment of the plaint. The application was opposed by the defendants. The first defendant contended that the suit was listed for evidence on 11.2009 and PW1 to PW5 were examined on the side of the plaintiffs. On 29.1.2009, DW1 was examined. Meanwhile, on 21.2009, the application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiffs. There is no mistake as alleged. The first defendant contended that the application for amendment is not maintainable in view of the bar under the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The court below allowed the application holding thus:

"This court had gone through the evidence adduced in this case. The resurvey plan, the commissioners report, the tax receipts and even the contentions raised by the defendants would all go to show that all parties have no dispute regarding the aspect that what has been purchased by the plaintiffs is the 5 cents from the north western corner of the 30 cents of the predecessor in title."

It was also held that for a proper and just adjudication of the disputes in the case, it is just and necessary to allow the proposed amendment.

4. In W.P.(C) No.4281 of 2009, the writ petitioners, the defendants in the suit, challenge the order passed by the court below allowing the application for amendment of the plaint, by which the respondent/plaintiff was permitted to amend description of the two boundaries in the plaint schedule. The suit is for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property. The averments in the plaint show that the property of the defendants is situated on the south-eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The defendants tried to demolish a portion of the fence on the north-eastern corner of he plaint schedule property to make it appear that there is a pathway through the eastern side of the plaint schedule property from the road on the northern side leading to the defendants property. The attempt of the defendants is to cut open a way through the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The eastern boundary is described as the property belonging to the plaintiff and the southern boundary is shown as the property belonging to Rajappan. By the amendment, the eastern boundary is sought to be changed as the property belonging to Joseph and the southern boun