The court emphasized the liberal approach to allowing amendments of pleadings, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bona fide one.

1. These three Revision Petitions are directed against the orders dated 05.09.2008 in

I.A. Nos.315, 407 and 408/2008 in O.S.No.78/2005 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpattu.

Background facts:

2. The Suit in O.S. No.78/2005 was filed by the revision petitioner against the respondents praying for a Judgment and Decree of specific performance on the basis of the agreement dated 25.09.2003 executed by the respondents.

3. In the Plaint in O.S.No.78/2005, it was the contention of the revision petitioners that as per the agreement dated 25.09.2003, the respondents have agreed to sell the suit property by way of separate sale agreements executed on 25.09.2003. The petitioners were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. However, the respondents failed to receive the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed in the name of the revision petitioners and as such, they were constrained to file the Suit for specific performance.

4. The first respondent has filed written statement wherein it was admitted that agreement was executed on 25.09.2003 between the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 3. The first respondent has also confirmed the receipt of advance consideration. Similarly, the first respondent confirmed the factual position that he was negotiating on behalf of the other respondents. It was the contention of the first defendant that time was the essence of contract and as the revision petitioners failed to perform their part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration, the agreement had become inoperative and as such, the ultimate remedy was only to get refund of advance consideration. Accordingly, the first respondent has prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

5. Subsequently, the Suit was taken up for trial. On the side of the revision petitioners, first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and documents in Ex.A.1 to A.19 were marked. Since the respondents failed to adduce evidence in spite of sufficient opportunity given to them, the Trial Court was pleased to close their evidence and the matter was posted for arguments.

6. While the matters stood thus, during June 2008, respondents filed three Applications. As per the Application in I.A.No.315/2008, they have prayed for filing additional written statement invoking Order 8, Rule 9, C.P.C. I.A.No.407/ 2008 was filed for the purpose of reopening the evidence on the side of the respondents. Similarly, by way of I.A.No.408/2008, they have prayed to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Applications, it was the contention of the 10th respondent for and on behalf of all the respondents that the Suit was posted on 27.06.2008 for arguments after recording evidence on the side of the plaintiff. In the meantime, they have decided to change their counsel on account of their lack of confidence in him and as the counsel was not prepared to give change of vakalat, an Application in I.A.No.738/2007 was filed for revocation of vakalat and as per Order dated 25.04.2008, the vakalat given in favour of the earlier counsel was revoked. Subsequently, they have engaged another counsel and on a perusal of the records, it was found that the written statement filed on their behalf did not represent full facts. The counsel newly engaged by them also informed them that there was no proper cross-examination of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs. Similarly, no evidence was let in on the side of the respondents. Therefore, the respondents were advised to file additional written statement incorporating their defence and to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination besides reopening the evidence on the side of the respondents as defendants.

8. The revision petitioners contested all these three Interlocutory Applications by filing counter. According to the petitioners, the Suit was filed on 16.04.2005 and the written statement wa