The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the administration of justice between the parties.

(Civil Revision Petition, filed under Sec.115 C.P.C against the order of the District Munsif, Nilakkottai dated 30.04.2002 made in I.A.No.74 of 2002 in O.S.No.221 of 1997, as stated therein.)

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Nilakkottai dated 30.04.2002 made in I.A.No.74 of 2002 in O.S.No.221 of 1997, dismissing the Petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.

2. O.S.No.221 of 1997: -

This Suit was filed by the Plaintiffs for Permanent Injunction relating to the Immovable Suit Properties in S.Nos.124/8, 125/1, 125/2 and S.No.23/2 in Pannaipatti Village, Nilakkottai Taluk. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are related as under: -

------------------------------------------------------------

| | |

| | |

| | |

Narasimha Naidu Venkitasamy Naidu Ayyappasamy Naidu

(died in 1969) D-1 D-2

= Narasammal died died

P-1 | |

| | |

| D-9 D-4 to D-8

| L.Rs of D-2

----------------

| |

Chinnasamy Jaya

P-2 P-3 (Genealogy as per Plaint)

3. The Plaintiffs claim Right and Title of the Suit Properties through Family Partition Deed dated 22.01.1952. Case of the Plaintiffs is that in the said Partition, the Suit Properties - "B-Schedule" Properties were allotted to the share of Narasimha Naidu. "C-Schedule" properties were kept in common by the Father-Chinnasamy Naidu and the Son. The said Narasimha Naidu died in 1969. The Plaintiffs being the Wife, Son and Daughter are the Legal Heirs. The Plaintiffs are in enjoyment of the Suit Properties – Item Nos.1, 2 and 4. Suit Item No.3 is in common enjoyment of the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 2. Denying the Title of the Plaintiffs to the Suit Properties, the Defendants 1 and 2 along with the Third Defendant have attempted to cut and remove the Karuvelam and other Trees in the Suit Properties on 15.08.1997. Hence, the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in the Suit Properties.

4. Claiming absolute Right and Title in the Suit Properties, Defendants 1 and 2 have filed elaborate Written Statement. The Defendants 1 and 2 have claimed Title through the Decree in O.S.No.55 of 1927 (Sub-Court, Dindigul) and A.S.No.57 of 1930 on the file of the District Court, Madurai. According to the Defendants, there was partition between D-1 and D-2 and Mother of D-2 in the year 1934. The Defendants have claimed that the Suit Properties in S.Nos.125/1, 125/2 and the Well in S.No.125/2 belonged to the Second Defendant. Denying the Right of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have raised objection for the maintainability of the Suit, which has been filed for Bare Permanent Injunction without prayer for declaration of Title. Suit for Permanent Injunction is not maintainable.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, issues were framed and parties adduced evidence. When the matter was pending Trial, the Plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.74 of 2002 for amending the Plaint for Declaration of their Title and alternative relief of recovery of possession for the relief of Permanent Injunction. In the supporting affidavit, the Plaintiffs have averred that Patta was issued in the year 1983 in the name of the First Plaintiff and that only after filing of the Suit, they came to know that the Second Defendant had obtained the Patta without notice to the Plaintiffs. Further, the Plaintiffs have stated that only after the examination of D-4 as D.W.1, they have come to know about the change in the Revenue Records and hence, the Amendment for Declaration of Title and alternative relief of recovery of possession was sought for.

6. The Defendants / Respondents have filed the Counter Statement contending that the Amendment Petition has been filed belatedly. According to the Defendants, the proposed Amendment for Declaration of Title and the alternative relief of recovery of possession would substantially alter the character of the Suit and that the Plaintiffs are not