Amendment of plaint is necessary for determination of real question of controversy.

This revision petition was posted today for admission. I heard the counsel for the petitioner.

2. The defendant is the petitioner. The respondent/ Plaintiff has filed a suit O.S. No. 538 of 1994 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and for damages at the rate of Rs.250/- per month from the date of filing the suit till realisation. The respondent herein has filed an application IA No.169 of 2003 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint seeking for declaratory relief and also to change the measurements of the suit property. The court below allowed the petition for amendment, which is challenged in this revision.

3. Before the court below, the respondent herein has marked Ex.P1 dated 13-11-1992, original deed of settlement executed by his father in his favour and Ex.P2 dated 11-02-1993 another original deed of settlement executed by his father in his favour. The reports of the advocate commissioner dated 21-01-2003 were marked as Exs. C1 and C2 respectively.

4. The respondent has pleaded before the court below that the suit was originally filed for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and for future damages. As per Ex.P1, the respondent has acquired property east to west, on the northern side 36 ft., southern side 36 ft., eastern side 12 ó ft. and western side 12 ó ft., admeasuring in all 459 sq.ft. Under Ex.P2, the respondent has acquired the property east to west, on the northern side 36 ft., southern side 36 ft., and on both eastern and western sides 19 ft. each, admeasuring in all 684 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No. 12/2A. The report of the Advocate Commissioner reveals that the exact extent is being occupied by the petitioner herein. It is also submitted by the respondent before the trial Court that, as the petitioner denied the title and set up a plea of adverse possession, it has become necessary for the respondent to seek for a declaratory relief by amending the earlier prayer. It is also canvassed by the respondent before the court below that court fee has to be determined in the first instance based on the plaint averments and if the defendant sets up a defence of adverse possession denying the title, it is open to her to amend the plaint and pay necessary additional court fee for the relief of declaration.

5. The petitioner herein has canvassed before the court below that the suit is not at all maintainable; the averments that the petitioner has encroached upon the property after filing the suit is false; that the report and sketch submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner are incorrect.

6. Mr. Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaint proceeds on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant and the suit was valued under Section 43 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee Act, 1955, as such the amendment ought not to have been permitted; that the question of title cannot be gone into the suit claiming arrears of rent and possession; that the court below failed to note that the amendment sought for would change the very character of the suit and the court below should have dismissed the said petition.

7. The relevant provision of law is Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., which runs as follows:-

"Amendment of pleadings: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties."

8. It is seen from the said Rule that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter and amend his pleadings, which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

9. The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice. The exercise shall be made with due care and circ