The court has the discretion to allow an amendment application, even if filed after the trial, in order to determine the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

The defendants are the revision petitioners, who have filed this civil revision petition, challenging the order passed by the court below in allowing the amendment application filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The brief facts are set out thus:

(i) Earlier the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. He had based his claim on the Will dated 04.02.2010. When the defendants denied the Will and also disputed the possession of the plaintiff, the amendment application has been brought out by the plaintiff to include the prayer, for delivery of possession.

(ii) The said application was resisted by the revision petitioners/defendants by contending that with respect to the properties in R.S.No.63/1A and 1B, even as on the date of the filing of the suit, the plaintiff was not in possession and the above relief was available to be included in the plaint based on the same cause of action. Having omitted to do so, filing of the amendment petition at this belated stage, cannot be permitted.

(iii) The learned Trial Judge, after thorough consideration, allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, any alteration to the pleadings should not be granted liberally, especially, in the case of amending the plaint. Particularly, when the amendment sought for is materially altering the structure of the suit and substitute the cause of action, the same shall not be entertained. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the civil revision petition.

5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Court below after analyzing the materials available on record, had allowed the amendment application, warranting no interference in this revision.

6. In the present case, originally the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The permanent injunction is only the consequential relief of declaration. According to the plaintiff, he is in possession of all the items of the suit properties, as on the date of the filing of the suit, but, after the trial, the plaintiff has come up with the new plea that he is not in possession of a portion of the suit property in R.S.No.63/1A and 1B of Nerunjipettai Village. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that the same was subsequent to the filing of the suit wherein the Courts will be constrained to accept the amendment, which is being subsequent to the cause of action pleaded. Once the prayer for possession is not prayed, eventually, it will be barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the second suit is filed.

6. Admittedly, the claim of recovery of possession is within the time, but the only objection on the part of the defendants is that it has been filed only to fill up the lacuna and the amendment changes the very nature of the suit.

7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(i) (2012) 11 SCC 341 [Abdul Rehman and another vs. Mohd.Ruldu and others]. The relevant portions are as follows:

"10................................. It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between them. The Courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

11. .................. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, cons