The court has wide power and discretion to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, but the discretion should be exercised on terms considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

1. This civil revision is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.614 of 2014 in O.S.No.13 of 2013, dated 09.01.2015 by the Sub Judge, Perundurai.

2. The respondent had instituted a suit in O.S.No.13 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Perundurai against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.1,78,386/- with future interest.

3. The case of the respondent is that he entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner on 28.06.2012 and in pursuance of the agreement, he paid Rs.1,70,000/- as advance and thereafter, the respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the petitioner did not come forward to execute the sale deed.

4. The petitioner has filed her written statement admitting the execution of the sale agreement, dated 28.06.2012 and the receipt of Rs.1,70,000/- as advance, however, disputed the readiness and willingness of the respondent/plaintiff. She has further stated that in view of default clause contained in the agreement of sale, the plaintiff is not entitled for return of the advance amount.

5. The suit was posted in the special list on 06.01.2014 and PW1 was cross examined in chief on 20.01.2014 and he has also marked Exs.P1 to P9. Even before the commencement of the trial, the suit was referred to Lok Adhalat and it was sent back, as the matter was not compromised. From 23.01.2014, the suit was adjourned on so many occasions for the cross examination of PW1. While so, on 27.10.2014, the petitioner chose to file an application I.A.No.614 of 2014 under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC and section 151 of CPC seeking permission to the court to file an additional written statement.

6. The petitioner has averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that now only when she was preparing for cross examination of PW1, some important points are left out and those facts are very much important to decide her case. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing a detailed counter. The trial court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision is filed.

7. Mr.C.Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order suffers from material irregularities and if allowed to stand would cause immense hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner; that the court was empowered to order permitting the parties to file additional pleadings at any stage of suit in order to avoid miscarriage of justice and the application for amendment is filed with valid grounds and the same has to be allowed in order to do complete justice.

8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-

1. In the case of Baldev Singh and others vs. Manohar Singh and another [(2006) 6 SCC 498].

2. In the case of Thiyagarajan vs. Manivannan [2007-1-LW-429];

3. P. Saraswathi vs. C. Subramanian [2013-5-L.W. 639].

9. In the case of Baldev Singh and others vs. Manohar Singh and another [(2006) 6 SCC 498], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

“17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 16 CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appear that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of document and addressing of arguments. As noted herein before, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which confers wide power and unfetter