D. Hari Paranthaman, J.

1. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 85 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode and the respondents herein are the defendants therein. The details of the suit are not relevant for disposal of this revision petition. The revision petitioners filed I.A. No. 404 of 2015 in O.S. No. 85 of 2012 seeking to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Trial Court passed an order dated 13.07.2015 rejecting the said application. Hence, this revision petition.

2. Taking into account the nature of amendment sought for, this Court ordered notice of motion on 14.09.2015 and granted interim stay.

3. After notice, the respondents entered appearance through counsel.

4. Heard both sides.

5. While the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the nature of amendment sought for, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application, the learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously contended that cross of P.W. 1 was over and therefore, plaintiffs could not seek for amendment at this stage.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

7. The amendment sought for by the