The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment to the plaint, which does not introduce a new cause of action, enhance the claim, or alter the nature and character of the suit, may be allowed if it is necessary to address a defense raised by the defendant.

(Petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13-1-2005 in I.A. No.1643 of 2004 in O.S. No.724 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.)

Heard Mr. P. Mathivanan, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

2. The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant challenging the order passed by the trial court allowing the petition filed by the plaintiff for amending the plaint.

3. The suit was filed for the realisation of Rs.35,100/- on the basis of a promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant.

4. Even though such promissory note was dated, in the original plaint, the date of execution, the place of execution of the promissory note and the place where the demand for repayment was made have not been indicated.

5. The defendant, in the written statement, stated that the place where the promissory note was executed and the place where the demand was made for repayment have not been indicated in the plaint and therefore it cannot be said that the suit was filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.

6. Thereafter, a petition was filed by the plaintiff to amend the original plaint to include the details regarding the place where the promissory note was executed, the place where the demand was made for repayment, etc. Such petition for amendment was allowed by the trial court subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/- by the plaintiff to the defendant.

7. The order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment petition is being challenged in this revision petition by the defendant mainly on the ground that such amendment which was sought after the period of limitation should not have been allowed. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on NATARAJSWAMY v. GNENAMBAL (AIR 1992 Mad. 25); S. KUPPUSAMY v. P.K. SUBRAMANI & OTHERS (2005 [4] CTC 734) as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. ALLOY FOUNDRY CO. LTD. v. T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS (2004 [2] CTC 637).

8. In my considered opinion, the ratio of these decisions is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In T.N. Alloy Foundry case, cited supra, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint by enhancing the claim for damages and such amendment had been filed after the period of limitation. Even though, the single Judge had allowed such amendment, subsequently the Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the single Judge on the ground that the enhanced damages was claimed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The matter was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while referring to its earlier decision in L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. (AIR 1957 SC 357) to the effect that ordinarily the court may decline an amendment which is sought for introducing a new cause of action which has become time-barred, the Supreme Court observed that if such a discretion has been used by the Division Bench, there was nothing to interfere with the order passed by the Division Bench.

9. It is to be noted in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, the amendment was for enhancing the damages and such an enhanced claim was obviously time-barred and in such circumstances, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Division Bench. In the present case, the plaintiff is neither attempting to introduce any new cause of action, which is time-barred, nor the amendment sought for alters the nature and character of the suit. The suit filed was to recover a sum of Rs.35,100/- and the suit was laid within the period of limitation. The amendment sought for by the plaintiff relates to the inclusion of the details relating to the place where the promissory note was executed and the place where the demand for repayment was made. The amendment became necessary inasmuch as the defendant