A liberal and lenient view should be taken to avoid miscarriage of justice, and a delay in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment. A mistake or error, if not fraudulent, should not be the basis for rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint.

1. The Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has focussed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 21.11.2009 made in I.A.No.1160 of 2009 in O.S.No.386 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, in dismissing the Application praying for amendment of short and long cause title in the Plaint (as stated therein).

2. The trial Court, while passing order in I.A.No.1160 of 2009 in O.S.No.386 of 2005 on 21.11.2009, has, inter alia, observed that 'the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has not proved that he has been taken in adoption by one Kuppusamy Iyer on 07.08.1959' and resultantly, dismissed the Application praying for amendment of short and long cause title in the Plaint.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff submits that the trial Court, while dismissing I.A.No.1160 of 2009, has not bestowed its leniency while appreciating the fact that the amendment sought for by the Revision Petitioner is only a pre-trial amendment and in fact, there is no impediment in law to allow the amendment sought for in issue because of the fact that the trial has not commenced in the main suit by means of examination of witnesses concerned.

4. Yet another contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the trial Court has not taken into account the Deed of Adoption dated 07.08.1959 viz., Document No.1 filed in the suit and the trial Court has committed a serious error in coming to the conclusion that no documents have been filed to establish the case of the Petitioner/Plaintiff.

5. Finally, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff is that the trial Court has not considered the submission of the Revision Petitioner that as per Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, after adoption by Petitioner/Plaintiff's grandfather, the late Kuppusamy Iyer, the Petitioner/Plaintiff ceases to be the son of his biological father late T.V.Subramania Iyer.

6. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant (purchaser of the suit property from the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant) submits that it is the stand of the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant in the counter in I.A.No.1160 of 2009 that the Petitioner/ Plaintiff was not taken in adoption by Kuppusamy Iyer at any point of time and when the suit posted in the list on 04.03.2009 and thereafter, when the case was adjourned on different dates, suddenly, the Petitioner has filed I.A.No.1160 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. praying to amend the Plaint.

7. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff is in the habit of filing application after application with a view to protract and prolong the conduct of the suit without any purpose and according to the Learned Counsel, the Revision Petitioner has filed I.A.No.4633 of 2005, I.A.No.2789 of 2006 and I.A.No.1333 of 2007 (praying for permission of the Court to file reply statement and amendments etc.). The said statement of the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant is not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff. It is on record that the Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff has projected I.A.No.4633 of 2005 seeking permission of the Court to file reply statement and later I.A.No.2789 of 2006 and I.A.No.1333 of 2007 praying for amendment of Plaint, as stated therein.

8. Obviously, the Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed one application or the other. In all, prior to filing I.A.No.1160 of 2009, he has filed three applications earlier and all the said applications have been allowed by the trial Court.

9. Be that as it may, in regard to the amendment application being filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., ordinarily, the Court will not enter into the arena of merits and demerits of the controversies/ disputes involved between the parties. By and large, a lenient and liberal view will be taken by a Court of Law to