The power to allow amendment of pleadings should be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and amendments should be necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties without causing injustice or prejudice to the other side.

1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A. No. 1828 of 2014 in O.S. No. 260 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 260 of 2009 for declaration, mandatory injunction, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The defendants filed their written statement and additional written statement and are contesting the suit.

3. Thereafter, when the suit was taken up for trial, the plaintiff took out an application in I.A. No. 1828 of 2014 under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint by amending the schedule of property in the plaint.

3.1 In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the plaintiff has stated that when the Advocate Commissioner visited the suit property, the Commissioner found further illegal encroachment by putting up superstructure in the nature of toilet and bath room. Since the Commissioner has filed his report stating about the further illegal encroachment, the plaintiff has filed the application seeking for amendment of the schedule of property in the plaint.

4. The defendants filed their counter disputing the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application wherein they have stated that when the case was posed for trial, the plaintiff filed an application seeking for amendment of the Survey Number as 113/12 in the place of Survey No. 113/1A2 and that even at that time, she did not choose to amend the extent from 0.1 cent to 18.6 cent, which is the extent available in Survey No. 113/12. Now the plaintiff has filed the second application seeking for amendment of the plaint by amending the schedule of property. Further, the defendants have stated that the present application has been filed only after the cross examination of PW-1, who has made vital admissions in favour of the defendants.

5. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the case of both the parties, dismissed the application.

6. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

7. Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Abdul Rehman and Another vs. Mohd. Ruldu and Others, 2012 (11) SCC 341 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows:-

"(11) The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated by this Court in J. Samuel and Others vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 300 and Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 337. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider whether the appellants have mad