The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to allow amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is wide and can be exercised in the interests of justice, but amendments should not cause prejudice to the other party and should not relate to defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party due to lapse of time.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 15.02.2019 passed in I.A No.976 of 2018 in O.S No. 602 of 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Munsiff, Alandur.)

1. This Civil Revision petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 15.02.2019 passed in I.A No.976 of 2018 in O.S No. 602 of 2016 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur.

2. The petitioners herein are the respondents in I.A No. 976 of 2018 in O.S No 602 of 2016, on the file of the Additional District, Munsif, Alandur, filed by the plaintiffs/first and second respondents herein under Order 6 rule XVII of CPC, to amend the plaint as described in the petition in I.A No. 976 of 2018, which was allowed by the Trial Court, despite objection raised by the defendants/petitioners herein about its maintainability and its jurisdiction. Aggrieved over the said order the defendants preferred this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that while allowing the amendment application filed by the respondent/plaintiffs in I.A No. 976 of 2018 in O.S No. 602 of 2016, the learned District Munsif Judge, Alandur, without considering the objection raised by the petitioner herein about the maintainability as well as earlier order passed by this Court in C.R.P No. 1928 of 2018. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Trial Court has wrongly entertained the said application, especially when this court has refused to allow the application for leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, at earliest occasion. However, for the same contention the plaintiff filed the said amendment application in order to achieve unlawful gain. In spite of dismissing the application filed by the respondents by this Court, the Trial Court erroneously allowed the said amendment application as such is unfair, unjust and liable to be set aside. Hence she prayed to allow this petition.

4. By way of reply the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that while filing the suit there is a sale agreement between the parties. Subsequent to that there was a developments like clearance of bank loan which necessitated the plaintiff to file amendment application to amend the pleadings with regard to specific performance and the same would not cause any prejudice to the defendants and those facts was rightly appreciated by the Trial Court while allowing the amendment application. Hence he prays to dismiss this petition. Further the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this petition is infractuours for the reason that after amendment, the plaintiff was directed to represent before the appropriate forum. Accordingly case was transferred to the District Court, Chengapet, O.S No.131 of 2019 was assigned and respondents also paid necessary Court fee. Even assuming that there is an error on the side of the Trial Court, by allowing the amendment application even without jurisdiction now the suit is transferred to the appropriate forum so the order of the Trial Court not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff''s. To support his contention he relied the judgement of the Supreme court reported in 2001 (1) SCC 712 in the case of B.K. Nayinar Pillai Vs Paramaswar Pillai and another:

The-purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guideline laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be clawed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnicai approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be co