Courts should take a liberal approach while considering applications for amendment of pleadings, and unless grievous injury will be caused to the other side or unless any right has subsequently accrued to the other side, which would be taken away by the amendment, normally amendments should be allowed.

1. This revision has been filed against the order refusing to allow the application for amendment on the ground that the application is time barred.

2. The counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there is no question of delay inasmuch as amendment applications have been necessitated after the Division Bench of this Court had rendered its judgment in O.S.A.Nos.250 and 251 of 1996 filed by the petitioner herein against the decree in the suit for specific performance filed by the first respondent and the decree in the suit for bare injunction filed by the petitioner. It is only in accordance with the findings therein that the applications have been filed. It was further submitted that the amendments sought to be introduced are in line with the existing pleadings and do not introduce a new case or a cause of action; nor are they belated. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments in support of his case :

B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai , A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 614, Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy , 2001 (8) SCC 115; K.S. Alagarsamy v. P. Natarajan , 1997 (1) CTC 292; Muthammal v. Tamburati, 1997 (2) CTC 12; Kalavathi v. Chitra , 1998 (1) CTC 529.

3. In the suit in which the present application has been filed, the petitioner, as plaintiff, has prayed for a declaration that the sale deed dated 13.12.1988 is null and void and for injunction and also accounts. In the plaint, he has pleaded that the suit property belongs to the Hindu Undivided Family, and that in 1977, his brother had executed a release deed in respect of his individual share and the respondents herein had accepted, without any bona fides, the Income Tax Clearance Certificate showing the property as individual property. In the proposed amendments, the petitioner seeks to introduce one paragraph to plead that the status of the suit property as Hindu Undivided Family property has been discussed by the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.Nos. 250 and 251 of 1996; and another paragraph with regard to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction; and yet another paragraph including the relief of a declaration that the Income Tax Clearance Certificate obtained by the respondents is not binding on the petitioner. According to the petitioner, for these amendments already there is basis in the pleadings as originally filed and therefore, the amendments, if introduced, will not in any way prejudice the rights of the respondents.

4. T he learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that this was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The judgment in the O.S.As. was rendered on 28.2.1999, but the application had been filed in the year 2003, four years later. It was submitted that this revision petitioner is resorting to various tactics in order to thwart the attempts of the decree holder who had obtained a decree for specific performance in his favour, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the respondents had entered into an agreement of sale contemporaneously with the petitioner and his brother in respect of the undivided half share belonging to each of them in respect of the suit property. The execution of the documents had been admitted in evidence recorded in the suit, against which the above O.S.A. had been filed, and the consideration thereto had been received by the petitioner not only on behalf of himself, but also on behalf of his brother. Learned senior counsel would also submit that the question whether the property belonged separately to the petitioner and his brother or to the Hindu Undivided Family is immaterial since both of them had conveyed their respective shares, thereby conveying a valid title in respect of the entire property to the respondents herein. According to the learned senior counsel, having resisted the suit for specific performance, and having met with failure, the petitioner is trying t