M. Duraiswamy, J.

Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No. 161 of 2014 in A.S.No. 06 of 2014 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Perambalur, the appellant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.649 of 2004 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Perambalur, to declare that the defendants are not the owners of the suit property, for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.

3. After contest, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

4. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.06 of 2014 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Perambalur. In the said appeal, the petitioner took out an application in I.A.No.161 of 2014 under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code to amend the plaint by including the prayer to declare that the plaintiff alone is the owner of the suit vacant site which is situate in SF No.450/1A/2 and to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Correspondingly, the petitioner also sought to amend the details of the valuation and the list of documents.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner has stated that originally she sought for negative declaration before the Trial Court, which was rejected by the Trial Court by its judgment. Further, she has stated that when the respondents advanced arguments that negative declaration cannot be granted, she made ready an application seeking for amendment before the Trial court. It has been further stated the Trial Court pronounced the judgment in the suit even prior to the filing of the application. In order to avoid the technical flaw, the petitioner has filed the application before the Lower Appellate court seeking for amendment of the plaint.

6. The respondents filed their counter disputing the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application. In the counter, the respondents have stated that the prayer sought for in the amendment application was not sought for before the Trial Court and the same has been specifically questioned by them in the written statement itself. Further, they have stated that when this defect was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner before the Trial Court itself, that too, even before the commencement of the trial, the petitioner choose not to file an application seeking for amendment before the commencement of the trial. The respondents have also stated that even after the completion of the trial before the Trial Court, the petitioner did not file the application seeking for amendment, though she gave notice to other side. Even before the Lower Appellate Court, the application seeking for amendment was filed only when the appeal was posted in the list for hearing. Further, the respondents have contended that the amendment of pleadings cannot be entertained after the commencement of the trial.

7. Mr. R. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Lower Appellate Court could have allowed the application and amended the prayer in the plaint. Further, the learned counsel submitted that by amending the prayer, no further evidence is required to be let in by the parties. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) An unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3592 of 2006, dated 15.12.2009 (Jaswant Kaur & Anr v. Subhash Paliwal), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

"18. It is no doubt true, as has been submitted by Ms. Shobha, that the power to allow amendment of pleadings is very wide and is to be applied liberally. However, in the context of the instant case, such an argument would not be available to the Petitioners since, as found by the Courts below, they were fully aware of the Will in question, but had not even mentioned the same in their written statement and had only made an application und