The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the court to allow necessary amendments to pleadings for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.74 of 2012 in O.S.No.88 of 2011 dated 14.03.2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Trichy.)

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred as against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.74 of 2012 in O.S.No.88 of 2011 dated 14.03.2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The suit in O.S.No.88 of 2011 was one for partition. The suit was filed on 08.06.2011. The plaintiffs and the defendants belong to the same family. The second plaintiff and the first defendant are the sons of the first plaintiff and the third plaintiff and the second defendant are the daughters-in-law of the first plaintiff. The third plaintiff is the wife of the second plaintiff and the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in I.A.No. 74 of 2012 in O.S.No.88 of 2011.

2. The first defendant in his written statement had pleaded that in his capacity as the power agent of plaintiffs 1 to 3, he has sold out the plaint schedule property to the second defendant by means of a registered sale deed dated 12.05.2010 in the office of Sub Registrar, K.Saathanur, Trichy. The same was similarly pleaded by the second defendant in paragraph No. 13 of her written statement as well. In view of the same, the plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.74 of 2012 in O.S.No.88 of 2011 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to amend the plaint as well as to include an additional prayer to set aside the sale deed in favour of the second defendant bearing document No.2001 of 2010 in the office of Sub Registrar, K.Saathanur, Trichy dated 12.05.2010. Both the defendants filed counter to the said interlocutory application. On merits, the learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the said interlocutory application and the operative portion of which is extracted as follows:

7. Point: Orders passed. The petitioner prays for an amendment originally the suit is filed for partition. Even in the plaint, the General power of attorney has been mentioned. It is subsequently stated that the same was cancelled. Even if so, during existence of power if any transaction took place, the plaintiff''s as Principals can ask for accounts from first respondent.

The amendments sought for are entirely different and go to the root of the nature of the suit itself. Such an amendment cannot be allowed. Hence this petition is dismissed with costs.”

Assailing the said order, the revision petitioners / petitioners / plaintiffs are before this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners as well as the first and second respondents anxiously and carefully perused the materials available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioners took me through the various grounds of this Civil Revision Petition and the other documents which he relied upon.

4. Refuting each and every argument placed before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. The amendment sought for by the petitioner is nothing but the same is another prayer in addition to the relief of partition, to set aside the sale deed in favour of the second respondent / second respondent / second defendant along with related amendments in few paragraphs of the plaint.

5. The primordial question which has to be decided here is whether the amendments sought for are entirely different and goes to the root of the nature of the suit itself, as held by the Trial Court?

6. My formidable answer is No. While deciding the application for amendment of plaint, the learned Trial Court refused bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments. Amendments are allowed in pleadings