Post-trial amendment cannot be granted without valid reasons, and the court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is limited by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.01.2015 in I.A.No.314 of 2012 in A.S.No.85 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Kuzhithurai Camp (Learned II Additional Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil).

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the learned Sub Court, Kuzhithurai Camp (learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil) in I.A.No.314 of 2012 in A.S.No.85 of 2012 dated 23.01.2015. The original suit in O.S.No.406 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai was one for declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule properties scheduled as ''A'' and ''B'' schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and a consequential injunction. The suit was dismissed on merits on 15.09.2012. As against which, A.S.No. 85 of 2012 was preferred by the plaintiffs before the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai Camp.

2. During the pendency of the appeal suit, the appellants / plaintiffs preferred a petition in I.A.No.314 of 2012 seeking to amend the re-survey number in plaint ''A'' schedule item No.2 and plaint ''B'' schedule properties as Re-survey No.270/1 instead of Re-survey No.270/2. The respondents / respondents / defendants have filed a counter to that interlocutory application and on merits, the said interlocutory application was allowed on 23.01.2015 in the first appellate stage. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioners / respondents / respondents / defendants.

3. Heard the learned Counsels for the revision petitioners and the respondent anxiously and perused the materials available on record carefully. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners took me through the various grounds of the Civil Revision Petition and the contents of the documents.

4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the amendment which is sought for in the first appellate stage ought to have dismissed by the first appellate Court at the first instance itself. In support of this case, he relied on the following decisions:

(i) The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India reported in (AIR 2005 SC 3353) Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India dated 02.08.2005 is extracted as follows:

“26. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision.”

(ii) The relevant portion of the judgment of this Court reported in (2005 (2) CTC 432) Ramesh Ramanujam and Others Vs. Varadammal and Others dated 31.03.2005 is extracted as follows:

“9. However, after the amendment of the said provision on and from 1 .7.2002 as per Amendment Act Central Act 46 of 1999, the legislature thought it fit to introduce a proviso to Rule 17. The said proviso contemplates two stages viz., application which can be filed prior to the commencement of the trial and after the commencement of the trial. Since the amendment itself restricts about pre-trial and post-trial stages, the intention of the legislature is very clear that no application seeking amendment of the pleadings is permissible after the completion of the trial.