Point of Law: As per Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, the Court is empowered to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings, at any stage of proceedings and such amendment shall be made for purpose of determining the real controversies raised between parties. A wide and discretionary power has been conferred on court to allow amendment of pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to court just and proper.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 5.7.2014, passed in IA.No.368 of 2014 in OS.No.32 of 1980, by the I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 5.7.2014, passed in IA.No.368 of 2014 in OS.No.32 of 1980, by the I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents are the Defendants in the suit. The suit was filed for declaration of tile and for injunction. The suit was decreed by the judgement and decree, dated 14.07.1995 and the appeal filed as against the same was dismissed, confirming the judgement and decree of the Trial Court, by judgement and decree, dated 23.12.1996. The second appeal filed before this Court was allowed, by judgement and decree dated 14.12.2011, in and by which, the suit was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh trial. After remand, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he had also filed a report and plan. At this juncture, the Plaintiff had filed the present application in IA.No.368 of 2014, seeking to amend the plaint, by including a prayer for recovery of possession of certain portion of the property, alleging that the said portion was encroached upon by the Defendants, during the pendency of the second appeal. Since the said application was dismissed by the impugned order, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that since there were subsequent changes taken place in the suit property and the Defendants had encroached upon the suit property and occupied some portion, during the pendency of the second appeal, in order to recover the same, the amendment sought is absolutely necessary and that if the amendment is not allowed, great prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner and that the court below erred in giving findings on merits of the case, while deciding the interim application, seeking amendment and in such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed.

4. The learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that at this distant point of time, the prayer for recovery of possession, by way of amendment, is barred by limitation and that only with a view to protract the proceedings and only to fill up the lacuna in the evidence, the application, seeking to amend the prayer in the suit, has been filed and hence, it is not permissible in law to allow the application, seeking to amend the prayer, at a belated stage and consequently, this Civil Revision Petition is to be dismissed.

5. This court heard the learned counsel on either side, considered their submissions and carefully perused the materials placed on record.

6. Originally, the suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction and it went up to the second appeal before this Court. In the second appeal, the suit was remanded back to the Trial Court for conducting a fresh trial. In the Trial Court, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and his report and plan were taken on file. At this stage, the Plaintiff had sought to amend the prayer, by including a prayer for recovery of possession of certain portion of the property, alleging that the Defendants had trespassed into the property and encroached the same, during the pendency of the second appeal. Per contra, it was contended by the Defendants that the prayer for recovery of possession is barred by limitation and that only to protract the proceedings, the amendment is sought for. By the impugned order, the court below had dismissed the application, accepting the contention of the Defendants.

7. Now, it is to be decided as to whether the impugned order, denying to allow the amendment, passed by the court below, giving findings on