The main legal point established is that an amendment should not be allowed if it introduces a new case, wipes out an admission made by the parties, or causes prejudice to the other party. Due diligence in seeking an amendment is crucial.

1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.20 of 2012 dated 25.09.2012 in A.S.No.11 of 2011 filed under Order 41 Rule 3 CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff has filed the Civil Revision Petition. Provision, Order 41 Rule 3, CPC is extracted hereunder.

"Rejection or amendment of memorandum— (1) Where the memorandum of appeal is not drawn up in the manner hereinbefore prescribed, it may be rejected, or be returned to the appellant for the purpose of being amended within a time to be fixed by the Court or be amended then and there.

(2) Where the Court rejects any memorandum, it shall record the reasons for such rejection.

(3) Where a memorandum of appeal is amended, the Judge, or such officer as he appoints in this behalf, shall sign or initial the amendment.

[3A. Application for condonation of delay— (1) When a appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.

(2) If the Court sees no reason to reject the application without the issue of a notice to the respondent, notice hereof shall be issued to the respondent and the matter shall be finally decided by the Court before it proceeds to deal with the appeal under rule 11 or rule 13, as the case may be.

(3) Where an application has been made under sub-rule (1) the Court shall not made an order fact the stay of execution of the decree against which the appeal is proposed to be filed so long as the Court does not, after hearing under rule 11, decide to hear the appeal.]"

2. Material on record discloses that a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2005 has been filed by the revision petitioner, for the following reliefs:

"9. Therefore, it is prayed on behalf of the plaintiff that

1. that the Hon'ble Judge shall pass orders against the defendants cancelling the sale deed dated 09.04.2003, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the property belonging to the plaintiff, as invalid.

2. granting permanent order of injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants, his men, agents, from interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property and

3. that the cost of the suit shall be given by the defendant to the plaintiff and grant such and other relief as the court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the suit.."

3. Written statement has been filed, by the defendants. Upon considering the pleadings the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur has framed the following issues for consideration.

"1. Whether the sale deed dated 09.04.2003 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant has to be held as invalid, and cancelled as prayed for, in this plaint?.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order for a permanent injunction, as per the plaint averments?

3. Whether the defendants are right in contending that the sale deed dated 09.04.2003, has come into force?

4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?"

4. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, by judgment and decree dated 09.03.2010, has dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ariyalur. In the appeal, just prior to arguments, the plaintiff / revision petitioner has filed I.A.No.20 of 2012 for an amendment. In the supporting affidavit, he has contended that while filing the original suit, in the Court below, he had furnished certain particulars to his counsel. But his counsel has filed the suit, without mentioning those particulars. In the supporting affidavit, the revision petitioner has contended that he is a illiterate person, not aware of the particulars mentioned in the plaint and when he had a