Amendment sought in a civil suit at the stage of judgment cannot be permitted, and interlocutory applications filed with the idea to prolong and protract the suit cannot be encouraged by the courts.

ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and decretal order dated 24.08.2022 passed in IA No.2 of 2022 in OS No.2352 of 2017.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit relief sought for reads as under:-

“(a) by declaring that the defendants 1 to 4 are the expelled members of the Cine Technicians Association of South India and consequently issue a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 not to in any manner interfere with any of the election process that may be conducted by the Cine Technicians Association of South India for the period 2017-2019 and for subsequent years that may have to be held as per Bye-laws of the Association.

(b) for a decree of declaration that the Annual General Body Meeting held by the expelled members defendants 1 to 4 herein and their men, on 09.04.2017 at A.V.M. Samooga Koodam, A.V.M. Colony, Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 092 is illegal, void, non est and contrary to the Bye-laws of the Cine Technicians Association of South India and consequently issue a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 and their men not to in any manner implement the illegal resolutions passed by them in the meeting as referred above dated 09.04.2017;

(c) for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, subordinates or any one acting under them from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties belonging to the Association more fully described in the Schedule hereunder”.

3. It is not in dispute that the suit now posted for judgment. The trial was concluded and at that stage, the revision petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application to amend the prayer in the suit.

4. The amendment sought for in the plaint and the prayer in the Interlocutory Application reads as under:-

“1. In para No. VIII of the plaint after the last line add:

The plaintiff s states that WP No.6777 of 2017 came up for hearing before High Court, Madras and on 15.02.2022 the Hon-ble High Court was pleased to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the writ petition granting liberty to raise all points in the controversy arising in the present suit. The plaintiff states that the order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the fifth respondent is against the principles of natural justice and no hearing was granted to the plaintiff-Association. The plaintiff also states that the order dated 16.02.2017 has got civil consequences and has been passed by the fifth respondent without jurisdiction.

In the prayer portion add:

Prayer aa) to declare that the order passed by the fifth respondent in proceedings bearing No.Aa.Ti.Mu. No.2114/E22017 dated 16.02.2017 is without jurisdiction, null and void and non est in the eyes of law.”

5. With reference to the plaint prayer and the amended prayer sought for in the Interlocutory Application, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the averments in the plaint that “the fifth respondent has been partisan made a party to the present proceeding since he is apparently acting in a partisan manner and has taken a contradictory stand by issuing the letter dated 16.02.2017 which is the subject matter of challenge before the Hon-ble High Court, Madras in WP No.6777 of 2017. The plaintiff states that the defendants 1 to 4 has been misleading the members of the Association and there is no other alternative other than to file the present suit seeking for a declaration that they are the expelled members of the Association. Moreover, the meeting held on 09.04.2017 by the defendants 1 to 4 is also illegal and the same is liable to be declared as null and void. Therefore, the present suit”.

6. Relying on the above averments in the plaint that the fifth respondent Sub Registrar has issued a letter on 16.02.2017, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the writ petition was pending at the