Amendments to pleadings may be allowed to ensure clarity and prevent multiplicity of proceedings, provided they do not prejudice opposing parties.

O R D E R

This revision is preferred against the order, dated 03.09.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.308 of 2013, on the file of the Additional District Mnsif, Lalgudi, Trichy District.

2. The revisions petitioners as plaintiffs filed the above suit in O.S.No.308 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Mnsif, Lalgudi, Trichy District for permanent injunction. Pending suit, the revision petitioners / plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2021 to amend the plaint stating that by mistake the extent of property has been wrongly mentioned in the schedule of property and therefore, it is required to amend the schedule of property with correct measurements. The said application was opposed on the side of the respondents / defendants. In the counter affidavit it is submitted that the case was filed in the year 2013 and the respondents / defendants have filed their written statement in which extension of the property was specifically denied. The respondents / defendants further submitted that, even after the filing of the Commissioner's report, the petitioners have not come forward to amend the plaint. Only after the case was posted for trial and the 3^rd plaintiff was cross examined and when the question was raised with regard to the schedule of the property and since the answer was not satisfactory, the revision petitioners / plaintiffs have filed the present amendment petition to fill up the lacuna and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Considering the above submission, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners /

plaintiffs would submit that in order to elucidate the factual aspect for reaching just conclusion and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial Court ought to have allowed the said amendment petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents / defendants would submit that the attempt of the revision petitioners / plaintiffs is only to fill up the lacuna and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application which calls for no interference by this Court.

5. Heard on both sides and perused the records.

6. The revision petitioners / plaintiffs filed the said suit in O.S.No.

308 of 2013 for permanent injunction and pending suit, the petitioners have filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint for correcting the extension mentioned in the plaint schedule. Admittedly, in this case, the 3^rd plaintiff was examined as PW.1. It is also not in dispute that PW.1 was cross examined by the defendants counsel to the effect that there is error in the extension of the property mentioned in the plaint schedule. In the amendment petition it is mentioned that due to mistake the correct extension was not furnished by the revision petitioners / plaintiffs. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that in order to arrive at a correct conclusion and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings the said amendment is necessary. The said contention is opposed on the side of the respondents / defendants stating that the said amendment petition is only to fill up the lacuna since PW.1 was already cross examined by the defendants in respect of the extension of property. Admittedly, it is well settled that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter, to amend his pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court has come to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial. However, if the Court feels that the amendment can be allowed, then