Direction given for allowing amendment of plaint.

The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners and the revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision arises from the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.64 of 2006 in O.S.No.37 of 2005 filed by the plaintiffs seeking for an amendment to the plaint under order 6 Rule 17 r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed by the order dated 13.02.2006.

2. The first defendant Manickam @ Sellapan is the husband of the first plaintiff Chinnammal. The second defendant in the suit is the father-in-law of the first plaintiff and father of the first defendant and the third defendant is the brother of the first defendant. There was a partition in the family of Periyanna gounder, namely, the second defendant on 110. 1985 and there was no division by metes and bounds. The further case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant was married to the first plaintiff and they had no issues for 2 years and when the first plaintiff was conceived afterwards, at the advise of astrologers, the first defendant has compelled the first plaintiff to make abortion on certain surmises and it was in those circumstances the first plaintiff was compelled to leave away from the first defendant along with her son the second plaintiff who was born subsequently.

.3. According to the plaintiff, there was the second partition in the family of Periyanna gounder on 29.05.2001 by which there was a division by metes and bounds and as per the said partition certain portions have been earmarked for the purpose of common use by way of easement. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and claiming 1/2 share to the second plaintiff in respect of item 1 to 3 of the suit properties and 1/6th share in respect of item 4 of the suit property, apart from the maintenance claimed against the first defendant.

4. The defendants have also filed a written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.64 of 2006 praying for an amendment of the plaint in respect of the discrepancy of the property showing the common passage. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition the plaintiffs admit that even in the partition deed dated 29.05.2001 such a common passage has been given and by mistake that was not mentioned in the plaint, even though a reference has been made about the partition deed dated 29.05.2001 in the plaint.

5. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that by omission of such common passage, ultimately even if the second plaintiff gets the partition of his property, he will not be in position to enjoy the same, since he will be prevented even from entering into the property. In those circumstances, the petition came to be filed.

6. The defendants who are the respondents herein have filed the counter affidavit stating that by the amendment the plaintiffs are seeking to introduce a new case. It is the further case of the defendants that without even knowing the particulars about the property, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Trial Court has dismissed the said application as against which the plaintiffs have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

.7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the purpose of order 6 Rule 17 r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment is to have an effective final disposal in respect of the dispute and therefore, the order of the learned Trial Judge in dismissing the application for amendment will only prevent the effective disposal of the suit in a proper manner. According to him even though in the plaint there is a mention about the second partition deed dated 29.05.2001 in Periyanna gounder’s family and it is true that the said partition deed contained clauses by giving easement rights to the parties, especially in favour of the first defendant in the suit from whom the second plaintiff is making a claim being his son and it