Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are permissible at the appellate stage if necessary for proper adjudication and do not introduce a new cause of action, despite limitations.

ORDER :

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

An order passed by the Appellate Court viz., Principal District Judge, Ariyalur dated 23.11.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in A.S.No.13 of 2018 allowing the amendment sought for by the plaintiff has been put to challenge in the present civil revision petition by the defendant.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

i) The petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Ariyalur seeking for a declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property describing the same as one falling under Survey No.182/25.

ii) The suit was contested by the respondent herein and after a full-fledged trial, the Trial Court had dismissed the suit, against which, the petitioner herein had filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.13 of 2018.

iii) Pending the Appeal Suit, the petitioner had filed an Application in I.A.No.1 of 2021 under Order VI Rule 17 and 18 and Section 151 CPC seeking to amend the plaint and to furnish the survey number with its sub-division as 182/25B contending that he was not aware of the sub-division at the time of filing the suit.

iv) The amendment application was objected by the respondent herein by filing counter contending that the plaintiff/petitioner was put to knowledge about the sub-division by filing written statement and also putting suggestions to him when he was cross examined, however, the plaintiff/petitioner, who failed to initiate for amending the survey number before the Trial Court, after having suffered an order of dismissal of the suit, has come up with an application belatedly seeking the amendment to nullify the order passed by the Trial Court and the same is barred by limitation too.

v) Whileso, the Appellate Court had allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner finding that the amendment is necessary for proper adjudication and by the said amendment, the defendant would not be prejudiced. Challenging the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are as under:-

i) The amendment application filed by the plaintiff at the appellate stage is a belated one and not permissible after the trial begins as per Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended in 2002.

ii) Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 mandates that any amendment should have been made within 3 years when the right to sue first accrues and thereby, the suit, having been filed in the year 2010, the amendment application filed in the year 2021 is hopelessly barred by limitation.

iii) The appellate court has failed to appreciate or examine the documents containing the sub-division details viz., Ex.B2 information obtained under RTI Act, Ex.B3, complaint filed by the plaintiff as against the defendant and others before the Magistrate Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and Ex.B18, copy of FIR, when especially, the plaintif had admitted his signature found in the document obtained by him under the RTI Act, 2005, but, has denied the same in the private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3)of Cr.P.C. and also denied the registration of the FIR, which establishes that the plaintiff was well aware about the sub-division during the pendency of the suit itself.

iv) The appellant was well aware of the sub-division during the pendency of the suit, however, he had not initiated for amending the survey number in the plaint and had filed the amendment application only to deny the fruits of the order to the defendant, however, the Trial Court erred in allowing the application and thereby, it is liable to be set aside.

4. The decisions reli