ORDER

This civil revision petition is directed as against the order dated 10.02.2015 passed in IA.No.26 of 2014 in AS.No.9 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge No.IV, Ponneri thereby allowing the petition for amendment.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent herein for specific performance. The suit property is comprised in S.No.64/1 and in the schedule of the property mentioned as S.No.62/1. Though the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent, the respondent failed to note the survey No. mentioned in the schedule of the property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred appeal suit. While pending the appeal suit, the respondent filed petition for amendment to amend the survey No.64/1 instead of 62/1 and the reason for amendment stated that it is a typographical error and the same was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amendment sought for in spite of due diligence, the respondent could not raise the issue before the trial court and even before the commencement of trial. He further submitted that in the plaint in the paragraph 9, the respondent stated that the suit property comprised in survey No.64/1 whereas he mentioned in the paragraph 13 as well as the schedule of the property he mentioned as suit property comprised in survey No.62/1. In fact the petitioner deposed as DW1 before the trial court and he categorically stated that the suit property is situated comprised in survey No.64/1. Even then, the respondent failed to raise the plea of amendment before the trial court. In the appeal court, that too after completion of arguments, the respondent filed the present petition for amendment. Without considering the above fact, the court below allowed the petition for amendment. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Anthonysamy Vs. Christoraj and another reported in 2013(4) CTC 443 and the order of this Court passed in CRP.PD.No.3937 of 2018 dated 20.11.2020.

4. Heard Mr.P.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for partition. The suit schedule property is comprised in survey No.64/1 situated at Panchayat Union Limits of Puzhal, Ambattur Sub Registration District, North Madras Registration District, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. On perusal of the complaint, in paragraph 9, the respondent stated that the property comprised in survey No.64/1 whereas he mentioned survey No. wrongly in paragraph 13 and in the suit schedule property. The pre-suit notice was issued by the respondent in which stated survey No.64/1 and whereas in the schedule of the property again wrongly mentioned as 62/1. The same error committed in the plaint. The said error was not noticed by the respondent as well as the petitioner herein. The trial court decreed the suit and mentioned the schedule of the property as mentioned in the plaint. In the appeal stage, the respondent noticed the survey No. mentioned wrongly as 62/1 instead of 64/1. Immediately, the respondent filed petition for amendment.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amendment sought for in spite of due diligence of the respondent he could not amend the plaint before the court below. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order of this court passed in CRP.PD.No.3937 of 2018 dated 20.11.2020, wherein it is held as follows:

6. Admittedly, the amendment application was filed after completion of the evidence. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., introduced by the Amendment Act of the year 2002 requires a plaintiff who seeks an amendment of the pleading after commencementof trial to show that the application for amendment could not have been filed earlier despite exercise of due deligence. A perusal of the affidavit would show that no such averments has been