The Court emphasized that the delay in filing an Amendment Application after the conclusion of the Trial cannot be entertained, and the serious prejudice caused to the opposing party must be considered.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order-dated 02.09.2004 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli in I.A.No.1076 of 2004 in O.S.No.297 of 2002, as stated therein.)

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.09.2004 of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli in I.A.No.1076 of 2004 in O.S.No.297 of 2002, allowing the Amendment Application filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C on payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.

2. O.S.No.297 of 2002 relates to House Property. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Suit Property belonged to one Hassan Mohideen, who has executed a Registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one S.Arunachalam to deal with the Plaint Schedule Property. The Plaintiff purchased the Suit Property from the said S.Arunachalam by a Sale Deed dated 01.12.1997. In the said Sale Deed, a major portion of the Sale Price has been reserved for payment. Subsequently, the said reserved amount has been paid by the Plaintiff to the General Power of Attorney – S.Arunachalam on 11.04.2002. The Plaintiff has received the "Panapattru Receipt"(gzg;gw;W) from the said S.Arunachalam. Immediately after the Sale, possession of the Suit Property was delivered to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. The Assessment has been changed in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has also paid the Tax due for the Suit Property. Electricity Service connection has also been transferred in the name of the Plaintiff on 25.07.1998. Defendants 1 and 2 are making false claim in the Suit Property. On 10.05.2002, Defendants 1 and 2 instigated by Defendants 3 and 4 came and demanded the Plaintiff to make the payment of the amount alleged to be due from his Vendor. Since the Defendants are attempting to interfere with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the Property, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction.

3. The Defendants have filed the Written Statement claiming that Hassan Mohideen has executed a General Power of Attorney on 20.09.1996 appointing the Second Defendant as his General Power Agent to deal with the Property. The Second Defendant has executed a Sale Deed on 02.11.1997 in favour of Defendants 1,3 and 4 for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and the Sale Deed dated 02.11.1997 has been registered on 20.02.1998. The said Hassan Mohideen has also executed Registered Deed of Acceptance on 03.03.1999 in favour of the Purchasers under the Sale Deed dated 02.11.1997. Pursuant to the Sale Deed, the Defendants are in possession of the Suit Property. The Defendants are paying the Property Tax and also the Electricity Charges. On 05.01.1997, Hassan Mohideen requested the Purchasers to lease the upstairs portion for his stay and the upstairs portion has been leased to him for a monthly rent of Rs.1000/-. The Creditors of Hassan Mohideen seem to have threatened him and got some documents executed under coercion. Those documents would not in any way bind the Defendants and their Sale Deed. Since the Plaintiff has not filed the Suit for Declaratory relief, the Suit is not maintainable and the Suit is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

4. The Trial commenced. The Parties have adduced evidence. At the stage when the case was posted for arguments, on 28.07.2004 I.A.No.1076 of 2004 was filed for Amending the Plaint – seeking to include the prayer Declaration of the Plaintiff's Title. The Court Fee also was sought to be changed under Section 25-B of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). According to the Plaintiff, both in the Written Statement as well as during the Trial, the Defendants have denied the Title of the Plaintiff and hence, for complete and effective adjudication, the Plaint is to be amended. The plaint was originally valued under Section 27-c of the Act. Afte