The court reaffirmed that while amendments to pleadings should generally be allowed for justice, they may be dismissed if filed after significant delay without justification, especially if they change the nature of the suit.

ORDER :

N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.80 of 2016, dated 04.01.2021.

2. The Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.80 of 2016.The suit was filed with the prayer to declare that the release deed, dated 30.09.2011 which was registered as Doc.No.6745, before the Sub Registrar Officer, Radhapuram, is not binding on the half of the share of the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.80 of 2016 and further pleaded, that the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff is having the absolute right over the property and the defendant, namely, Arumuga Chettiar and others did not have any right and they shall not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The subject matter of suit property is situated in .....

3. Previously, the respondents herein, as plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.No.37 of 2012 against the Revision Petitioner and others for a declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in that suit and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for other injunctions.

4. As the parties are one and the same and the suit schedule property is also one and the same, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.80 of 2016 filed an application before the District Court at Tirunelveli for conducting joint trial of O.S.No.80 of 2016 and O.S.No.37 of 2012. The District Court upon hearing all the parties to lis, ordered joint trial vide order, dated 19.06.2017, in Tr.O.P.No.92 of 2017.

5. When PW-1 was examined in chief and when the case was posted for examination of the Revision Petitioner as DW-1, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff filed an amendment application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to include the prayer to declare the release deed, dated 05.04.2011 is not binding on the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff.

6. The trial Court had rejected the said application by holding when the Revision Petitioner was aware of the fact that the release deed, which was marked as Ex-A8 on 05.04.2011 and when PW-1 was fully cross examined by the plaintiff in O.S.No.80 of 2016, the question of the Revision Petitioner having no knowledge about the release deed, dated 05.04.2011, is nothing but of after thought, when the Revision Petitioner had complete knowledge about the said release deed.

7. The trial Court had also considered the point of limitation, since there is an inordinate delay by the Revision Petitioner to make an amendment application, by relying upon Article 58 of the LIMITATION ACT . The trial Court had referred the the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Rajkumar Gurawara vs. S.K. Sarwagi and Company (P) Limited, 2008 (14) SCC 364 held that “It is settled law that the grant of application for amendment be subject to certain conditions, namely, (i) when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment; (ii) when the amendment would result in introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party; (iii) when allowing amendment application defeats the law of limitation. The trial Court on the above reasons, dismissed the amendment application. Challenging same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff was not aware of the rel