D. Krishnakumar, J.

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 21.04.2010 passed in I.A. No.320 of 2010 in O.S. No.47 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Harur.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S. No. 47 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif, Harur seeking for relief of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.07.1992. At the time of filing of the suit, the date of the sale deed was wrongly mentioned as 11.07.1992 instead of 11.07.1997 in the plaint. Since, there is a typographical error in the plaint, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No.320 of 2010 seeking for amendment in the plaint. The learned District Munsif, without considering the sale deed dated 11.07.1997, which was produced by the petitioner/plaintiff, has erroneously dismissed the application holding that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff cannot be accepted as it would affect the nature of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mount Marry Enterprises v. Jivratna Medi Treat Private Limited (2015 (4) SCC 182) : (AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 600), wherein, it is observed as follows in paragraphs 7 and 10.

'In our opinion, as per the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the amendment application should be normally granted unless by virtue of the amendment nature of the suit is changed or some prejudice is caused to the defendant. In the instant case, the nature of the suit was not to be changed by virtue of granting the amendment application because the suit was for specific performance and initially the property had been valued at Rs.13,50,000/- but as the market value of the property was actually Rs.1,20,00,000/- the appellant-plaintiff had submitted an application for amendment so as to give the correct value of the suit property in the plaint.

With regard to the amendment of the plaint, the following observation has been made by this Court in North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan Das (AIR 2008 SC 2139, p. 2142, para 15) : (SCC p.517, para 16)

16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6, Rule 17, CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Prigonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil (AIR 1957 SC 363) which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.'

4. He also relied on yet another decision of this Court, in Palaniammal v. V.K. Ramanathan and others (2002 (1) CTC 618) wherein, it has been held as follows:

'To sum up the legal position,

(1) The power to allow amendment is wide and hence the Court should not adopt hyper technical approach but on the other hand liberal approach should the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs.

(2) The general rule is that the party is not allowed to set up new case or new cause of action.

(3) Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the administration of justice between the parties and amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

(4) Courts cannot go into the truth or falsity of the proposed amendments sought for at the time of conside