Amendments to pleadings in civil suits can be allowed liberally prior to the commencement of trial, with strict rules only applying post-recording of evidence.

ORDER :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs seeking amendment of plaint.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) declaring that the defendants 2 to 12 are not the duly co-opted trustees of the 1^st plaintiff trust; 

/consequently/

(b) restraining the defendants 2 to 12 by means of a decree of permanent injunction from functioning as trustees and from in any manner interfering in the management and administration of the 1^st plaintiff trust and the Educational Institutions of the 1^st plaintiff by the plaintiffs 2 and 3;

(c) declaring that the 2^nd plaintiff is the duly co-opted Life Time Managing Trustee of the 1^st plaintiff trust and its educational institutions; 

/consequently/

(d) restraining the 6^th defendant by means of a decree of permanent injunction from in any manner interfering in the management and administration of the 1^st plaintiff trust and the Educational Institutions of the 1^st plaintiff by the 2^nd plaintiff;

In the plaint, it was stated by the plaintiffs that the 2^nd respondent/2^nd plaintiff was in management of 1^st respondent/plaintiff trust and the 1^st defendant without having any power or authority under the instrument of Trust executed a deed styled as Addendum deed dated 02.04.2007 and co-opted the defendants 2 to 4 as Trustees along with one Rajeswari. Subsequently, another deed of Addendum was executed on 25.10.2013 by the 1^st defendant co-opting 5^th defendant as trustee of 1^st plaintiff trust. Again, yet another Addendum deed was executed on 29.07.2019 co-opting 6^th defendant as trustee, who in turn co-opted defendants 7 to 12. Questioning the above Addendum deed and the co-option of defendants 2 to 12, the above suit was filed by the plaintiffs. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement. The Issues in the suit were framed on 13.03.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 02.04.2025 for trial. In the meantime, the plaintiffs have filed an instant application on 17.03.2025 seeking amendment of plaint.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of amendment of plaint, it was stated by the plaintiffs that taking advantage of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate on 28.02.2020 under Sec.145 of Criminal Procedure Code, the defendants 2 to 12 had forcefully taken over the management of the 1^st plaintiff trust and its educational institution on 28.02.2020. Subsequently, the said order passed by the Executive Magistrate was quashed by this court. It was further stated that since the defendants 2 to 12 had taken over the management of the 1^st plaintiff trust on 28.02.2020, the plaintiffs sought for inclusion of prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over the management of 1^st plaintiff trust to plaintiffs 2 and 3 and to restore the status quo. They have also sought for inclusion of paragraph 16(a), which contains necessary averments in support of prayer for mandatory injunction. The said amendment application was opposed by the petitioners on various grounds, however, the trial court was pleased to allow the amendment application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/defendants 2, 3, 5 to 8, 10 and 11 have came by way of this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the trial court on the following two grounds:-

(i) The amendment application has been filed sub