Provisions of Amendment Act of 2002 not applicable to any pleadings filed before 2002.

The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

2. The revision petitioner, impleading the respondents herein as defendants, has filed a suit for Specific Performance of contract, seeking direction to the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of some immovable properties. According to revision petitioner/plaintiff, the first defendant had agreed to sell the suit property on his behalf and on behalf of his minor and in pursuance of the same, he had also executed a sale agreement in his favour agreeing to sell the property for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is the further case of the plaintiff/revision petitioner, as seen from paragraph 4 of the plaint that because of the suit filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.39/96 on the file of District Munsif, Hosur, he was unable to complete the sale transaction and there was some dispute. It is the further contention of the revision petitioner as seen from paragraph-8 of the plaint that because of the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff was legally prevented from filing the suit for specific performance and therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation. On the above basis, accusing the defendants, as if they have committed breach of contract, the suit was filed for specific performance in the year 1996 and the said suit is still pending.

3. The contesting defendants/respondents filed a detailed written statement informing the Court, how the suit is barred by limitation and how the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance. On the basis of the plea and counter plea, after framing issues, the trial has been commenced and at present, P.W.1 was examined.

4. At this stage, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.452/2003 in order to introduce certain amendments, as detailed in the petition, contending that the proposed amendment is in the nature of clarificatory statement based on subsequent to sub division of suit property as well as on the basis of subsequent withdrawal of previous suit, filed by the first defendant and therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice and to decide the case once for all finally, the proposed amendments are absolutely necessary. The contesting defendants, opposed the same on the ground that the petition filed for amendment after P.W.1 has been examined is not maintainable in view of the amended Civil Procedure Code and that the plaintiff cannot claim exemption on the basis of pendency of the previous suit, which has nothing to do with the filing of the present suit.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, weighing the rival contentions of the parties, scanning the previous pleadings as well as the proposed amendment, tested the same with judicial precedent, which brought to surface that the petition is not maintainable. In this view, the petition came to be dismissed on 31.10.2003, which is under challenge in this revision.

6. Heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P. Mani, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.V. Raghavachari submits that by the proposed amendment, the plaintiff is not introducing any new case, not changing the character of the suit, including the prayer and the aim of the petition is only to clarify the existing pleadings, if the same is allowed, it would not cause any prejudice to the other side. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the amended Civil Procedure Code relating to the provision under Or.6 R.17 could not be made applicable to this case, since the amended provision is not made applicable to the existing pleadings viz., the suits filed prior to 1.7.2002. Unfortunately, without considering these aspects, the trial Court committed an error, in dismissing the application, which error should be rectified by this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, opposing the above contentions, submits that the amended provision is applicable even to the present case and not only that, by the proposed amendment,