1. Can an application, seeking an amendment of the plaint, casually filed before the appellate court, as if one under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be allowed as a matter of course?

2. The appellant in A.S.12/2011 of the District Court, Thodupuzha as plaintiff filed O.S.No.153/2008 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kattappana for declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property, for setting aside Ext.A2 sale deed, and for consequential injunction. The trial court after a full-fledged trial, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 24.11.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the aforesaid appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, towards the fag end, it seems that the plaintiff has chosen to file I.A.No.534/2012 seeking an amendment of the plaint for incorporating a prayer for declaration that Ext.A2 sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the first defendant is void and not binding on the plaintiff or the plaint schedule property as relief No.1, and to incorporate a relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants as relief No.2, and also for amending the valuation portion of the plaint.

3. Even though it was objected to, it seems that the lower appellate court has chosen to allow I.A.No.534 of 2012 and then to remit the matter to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh, after incorporating the amendments in the plaint. Of course, an opportunity has been granted to the defendants to file additional pleadings, by way of additional written statement. It is aggrieved by the said remand, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants Sri. Sathish Ninan, and learned counsel for the first respondent, Sri. N. Subramanian. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that after the amendment of the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the court below ought not to have allowed the amendment application, as a matter of course, by taking the matter lightly. It has also been argued that the legal position has changed a lot after the amendment. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the amendments sought for will not change the nature and character of the suit and there was nothing wrong on the part of the the lower appellate court in allowing the amendment sought for.

5. Both the learned counsel are relying on the decision in Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu and others[(2012) 11 SCC 341] wherein it was held that if the factual matrix pleaded contains the relief sought for by way of an amendment, the court can liberally grant such an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for incorporating such relief. It was further held that an amendment should be allowed only when it should minimize the litigation and when the same is required for determining the real questions in controversy, when the factual matrix also contains such a plea. The learned counsel for the appellants has produced a copy of I.A.No.534/12.

6. The plea taken up in the affidavit for seeking the amendment is as contained in paragraph 2 of I.A.No.534/12 which reads as follows:

“On going through the plaint, while preparing for the arguments in the above appeal, it is noticed that in the RELIEF portion of the plaint, it is inadvertently prayed for as, one “for setting aside the sale deed in question, instead of praying for a declaration that it is void and not binding on the plaintiff or the plaint schedule property.” After executing the impugned sale deed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the first respondent, they claim that, the first respondent is in possession of the plaint schedule property. In the circumstances, the prayer for the recovery of the plaint schedule property has also to be incorporated in the relief portion of the plaint. The pleadings in the plaint have to be amended in the aforesaid manner which is necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute in