Amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made, and amendments can be allowed when the opposite party is not prejudiced.

1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.245 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Mannarkudi. The revision petitioner filed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession in respect of two items of properties and after commencement of trial, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.699 of 2008 under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the extent of second item of property as 0.89 cents instead of 0.44 ½ cents and also the boundaries of the suit properties. That application was rejected by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

2. Mr.Bhiman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below without properly appreciating the fact that pre-trial amendment are to be allowed liberally, erroneously dismissed the application holding that boundaries were not given in the plaint schedule and the amendment sought for would affect the character of the suit. He further submitted that the revision petitioner only prayed for substitution of boundaries and amendment of the extent of second item of suit property in the pleadings and schedule as 0.89 cents instead of 0.44 ½ cents and by such substitution of boundaries and amendment of extent, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in respect of the suit property in S.No.167/12 the respondent is the owner of an extent of 76 ½ cents and therefore, the revision petitioner is not entitled to claim the declaration in respect of 89 cents by way of amendment and the relief sought for by the revision petitioner would affect the case of the respondent.

4. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. At the time of filing the application for amendment, admittedly, the trial has not been completed.

5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgements regarding the amendment of the pleadings.

6. In the Judgementreported in 2008 (14) SCC, 364 (Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) vs. S.K.Sarwagi and Company Private Ltd., and another), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as follows in para-13:

"To put it clear, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite part is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso."

7. In the Judgement reported in 2008 (8) Supreme Court Cases 511, (North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In AIR 1957 SC, 363 (Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil) which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been origin