ORDER :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2018 made in I.A. No. 1228 of 2017 in O.S. No. 568 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur.

2. I.A. No. 1228 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for the purpose of amending the plaint. The contention of the Revision Petitioner is that originally in the plaint he has stated that there was an encroachment to the extent of 300 sq. ft. in the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the Court appointed the Advocate Commissioner at plaintiff's request to measure and note down the physical features of the suit schedule property on 17.12.2012. The Advocate Commissioner's report reflects that the entire property of 2400 sq. ft. is under the occupation of the respondent herein. Therefore, he filed the I.A. No. 1228 of 2017 to amend the plaint by incorporating the extent of encroachment as 2400 sq. ft. instead of 300 sq. ft. The Court below after hearing the parties has dismissed the application stating that the suit is pending for defendant's side evidence and allowing the said application will change the nature and character of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the suit the plaintiff's side evidence was completed and the suit is pending for the defendant's side evidence. The Court below had dismissed the said I.A., stating that the application for amendment was moved after five years from the filing of Advocate Commissioner's report and in the post-trial stage. It is the settled law that the amendment cannot be denied on the basis that the application has been filed in the belated stage. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surendar Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh reported in (2009) 10 SCC 626. As far as the reason stated by the Court below for dismissing the application that it has been preferred at the post-trail stage, the learned counsel referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu and others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 341.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case at the time of filing the suit the petitioner only knew that the encroachment was to the extent of 300 sq. ft. Subsequent to the filing of Advocate Commissioner's report, the petitioner came to know that the respondent has encroached the entire suit schedule property to the extent of 2400 sq. ft. Due to his avocation the petitioner left to Kerala, therefore he was not aware of the extent of encroachment. Further, if the amendment with regard to the post suit encroachment is not permitted the petitioner has to file a fresh suit, which leads to multiplicity of legal proceedings. In order to avoid the multiplicity of legal proceedings, the application for amendment was sought but it was not allowed. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the order passed by the Court below. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the additional Court Fee, if any, after the amendment of the plaint and in case, by virtue of valuation of the suit, if the case needs to be transferred to concerned jurisdictional Court, the same may be done in accordance with law.

5. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the alleged encroachment is of 2400 sq. ft. The petitioner had purchased a plot and he is in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the property over a period of 17 years and he had already constructed a building in the plot, even at the time of construction the alleged encroachment is in existence. According to the first respondent, he constructed the building only in his property. Therefore, he contended that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the I.A. No. 1228 of 2017 for amending the plaint by suppressing the