Heard Mr. N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr. S.Thangavel and Mr. S.Subramanian , learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. The procedure is meant to facilitate the ends of justice and not to defeat the same. The present case is a classic example of a procedural battle that has driven the Petitioners to file the present Revision Petition. In O.S.No.193 of 2008 was filed before the Subordinate Court Judge, Dharapuram, by the present Revision Petitioners i.e., R.A.Karunambal and Kavinkumar and also by Latha Rani against Arumugam, who is the husband of R.A.Karunambal and the father of Kavinkumar and Latha Rani. Loganathan who was the power agent of Arumugam was impleaded as the 2nd Defendant and Duraisamy, the subsequent purchaser of one portion of the suit property was impleaded as the 3rd Defendant in the Plaint filed on 24.11.2008. The prayer in the Plaint for partition and maintenance since the Plaintiffs have alleged that the 1st Defendant in the suit fell in bad company and became addicted to alcohol and accordingly has driven them away from the matrimonial home.

3. When the matter stood thus, the Plaintiffs filed in I.A.No.247 of 2010 in O.S.No.193 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking impleadment of two other respondents viz., V.Santhamani and S.Senthilkumar who happened to be the subsequent purchasers of the property. The said I.A was allowed by the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram by order dated 06.09.2010. In furtherance of the said order, the original Plaintiffs Nos.1 and 3 filed in I.A.No.699 of 2010 in O.S.No.193 of 2008 before the Subordinate Court seeking for transposition of the 2nd Plaintiff as the 4th Respondent since she was not Co-operating with the Plaintiffs. The said Application was allowed by the Subordinate Court by order dated 09.06.2011.

4. After the Order of the Trial Court in I.A.No.699 of 2010, the present Revision Petitioners have filed in I.A.No.567 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking amendment of the Plaint. The said I.A was resisted by the Respondents stating that it is an abuse of process of law and the same has been filed with malafide intention and accordingly prayed that the same may be dismissed. The Subordinate Court by Order dated 07.12.2012 has dismissed the I.A by holding that it is not permissible for the Plaintiffs to amend the Plaint at the present juncture and accordingly dismissed the I.A., thereby depriving the Plaintiffs the right to amend the Plaint, inspite of there being impleadment of two parties and transposition of one plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petition before this Court.

5. Mr. N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner assailed the Order passed in I.A.No.567 of 2011 by the Subordinate Court by stating that in view of the death of the 1st Defendant and in light of the transposition of the 2nd Plaintiff as the 6th Defendant, as a natural corollary, the shares have to be altered in the Plaint, otherwise, the changes effected pending suit would create further confusion in the preliminary decree. It is his further contention that the Trial Court has misconstrued the purpose and scope for the amendment and the amendment of the Plaint is necessary since it is absolutely necessary for the effective adjudication of the suit and in the event, the amendment is not allowed, it would result in multiplicity of proceedings.

6. It is also canvassed by the petitioner that the purpose of the amendment is to give a quietus to the issue and there is no need to let in further evidence, therefore, no prejudice would be caused in allowing the amendment. Reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in 2012 (5) CTC 803, 2012 (2) CTC 94, 2004 (4) CTC 231 and 2012 (5) CTC 337 to emphasize the point that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose determining the real question in controversy between the parties ought to be allowed by the