The main legal point established is that a proposed amendment must be consistent with the original pleadings, not time-barred, and in line with the procedural rules, failing which it may be dismissed by the court.

The petitioners/plaintiffs in I.A.No.19353/2003 are the revision petitioners.

2. The first petitioner/plaintiff is the wife of one Thangavelu Nadar. It appears, the deceased first defendant by name Mallammal @ Mariammal is the sister of the said Thangavelu Nadar. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of Thangavelu Nadar, have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged half share in the 'A' schedule property, elsewhere in the year 1987, on the file of the Ist Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai, which is numbered as O.S.No.6816/1988. Pending proceedings, Mallammal died. It appears, defendants 2 & 3 claim title to the suit property, in pursuance of a settlement deed executed by the deceased/first defendant. The plaintiffs, more or less, as seen from paragraph-7 of the plaint, admitting that the first defendant had settled some portion of the property, in favour of defendants 2 & 3, under a registered settlement deed dated 9.3.1985, have claimed division of the property, contending that the defendants 2 & 3 are claiming absolute right over the suit property.

3. When the suit was pending for trial, the plaintiffs have filed an amendment application i.e. after the death of the first defendant, to introduce certain new averments, contrary to the existing pleadings, as well as a new prayer "to declare that the alleged settlement deed as sham and nominal, illegal and void ab initio and therefore unenforceable". The said application was opposed by the contesting respondents on the ground, that the proposed amended filed, after the commencement of the trial, is not maintainable, that the proposed amendment is time barred, if allowed, it would certainly deprive the right of the contesting respondents, and that the amendment petition is filed highly belatedly, when the suit was in the part heard stage, and if allowed, that would cause much prejudice.

4. The learned trial Judge, after going through the averments in the affidavit, as well as the case of the plaintiffs' originally projected in the plaint, as well as the proposed claim under the amendment application, came to the conclusion, that the proposed claim or the proposed prayer is barred by limitation, that the amendment application filed after 15 years i.e. when the suit is pending as part heard, is not maintainable. In this view of the matter, the amendment application in I.A.No.19353/2003 came to be dismissed on 17.11.2003, which is under challenge in this revision.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.F.J. Ponnudurai and the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. P.V. Arulpalam Nee.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits, that the settlement relied on by the contesting respondents, was not executed by the deceased first defendant, that it is a forged document, and it came to their knowledge only recently and immediately, a petition was filed for amendment, which cannot be termed as time barred one. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that despite the fact the trial of the suit has been commenced, no substantial progress has been made and it is only in the initial stage of examination of P.W.1 and in this view, proviso 2 to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. could not be an impediment, in allowing the amendment application, since Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. gives wide discretion and power to the Court, to permit the parties, to amend the plaint, at any stage, in order to meet the ends of justice.

7. Opposing the above contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents submits, that in view of the stand taken by the plaintiffs in the original plaint, they cannot be allowed somersault, by introducing the proposed amendment, which aims to nullify the previous statements, which is an admission and in this view, it is the further submission of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, that the petition deserves to be dismissed, as rightly did by the