The court reaffirmed that amendments to pleadings are subject to limitations and must not alter the nature of the case.

1. The civil revision petition arises against the fair and decretal order dated 27.07.2010 passed in I.A.No. 69 of 2010 in A.S.No.16 of 2010 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli.

2. According to the petitioner, the first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.145 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenkasi to declare that the plaintiff is having preferential right so as to purchase 2/3 shares of the defendants 2 to 9 and also for perpetual injunction. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No16 of 2010 before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Tack Court No.1, Tirunelveli. Along with the said appeal suit, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.69 of 2010 to amend the plaint particularly with regard to para 8 and 9 of the plaint, to substitute the relief of the suit. The said application was allowed by the appellate Court, on payment of cost. Aggrieved against the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid application has been filed by the first respondent / appellant in the appeal suit to amend the pleadings in the plaint as well as to amend the relief in the prayer of the said plaint, which cannot be granted at this stage. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would object that now the amendment of the prayer in the suit is a time barred one. Therefore, the said prayer in the suit filed by the first respondent / appellant is barred by limitation. Further, according to the petitioner, by allowing the said amendment application, necessarily, there would be change in the nature and character of the suit. Therefore, without considering the above said legal position, the Court below, merely accepted the contention of the first respondent, allowed the said application, which is against the principles of law relied on by this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the amendment application filed by the first respondent / appellant is maintainable, even in the appeal suit. The said prayer in the plaint is only an additional prayer to the prayer already sought by the first respondent. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner, if the said application is allowed. The said additional prayer can be very well agitated by the revision petitioner before the appellate Court at the time of deciding the appeal. An opportunity shall be given to the fist respondent to agitate the matter on merits, by granting such relief as prayed in the amendment application. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application, by observing that there would be no change or alter in the nature and character of the suit, by allowing the said application.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned counsel for the respondents 13 to 16 and perused the materials available on record.

6. The first respondent / appellant has contended that due to inadvertence and bona fide, he has committed mistake and he failed to seek the relief to set aside the sale made by defendants 2 to 6 in favour of the defendant No.1 on 22.10.1986. Further, it is contended in the affidavit that now only, he came to know that the said relief is necessary. The relief sought for in the amendment application in para 8 of the plaint is with regard to the payment of fees for the amendment prayer and in para 9 of the plaint is with regard to substitute the original relief seeking declaration to set aside the sale made by defendants 2 to 6 in favour of the defendant No.1 on 22.10.1986. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the first respondent / appellant, he has not satisfactorily explained the reasons for the belated application filed by him, even though he had the knowledge about the disputed sale deed.

7. The revision petitioner has rel