THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVL REVISION PETITION NO.4799 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The order under challenge is the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in I.A.No.407 of 2008 in O.S.No.89 of 1996 dated 12.09.2008. I.A.No.407 of 2008 was filed seeking amendment of the plaint to the effect that “the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract”. The Court below held that, for the amendment sought for by the petitioner, the crucial fact was that such a plea ought to have been taken in the plaint itself; in a suit for specific performance, the readiness and willingness of the petitioner to perform his part of the contract should be established; if the petitioner had missed such a fact in the plaint, he could have established the fact that he was ready and willing to perform his contract through other facts stated in the plaint; but he could not cure his mistake or fill up the lacunas on his part; as the parties had already let in evidence to that extent, the amendment sought by the petitioner would cause prejudice to the respondent and would change the very basis of the case itself; parties should be vigilant and cautious about their rights and cannot make a mistake regarding an essential fact, and fill up the lacunas in the plaint at the fag end of the suit proceedings; no sufficient reason or cause for omission of such fact was shown; and at the fag end of the stage of the suit, the said mistake could not be cured as it would effect the very nature of the suit. The Court below also observed that it is only after conclusion of the trial, and after the respondents had pointed out the lacuna on his part, did the petitioner seek to fill up the lacunae. The Court below held that there was no cause shown by the petitioner for such amendment to be allowed. It is evident that the application to amend the plaint was filed after trial had commenced. The Court below was satisfied that the petitioner had not shown due diligence in seeking the amendment earlier, and that his endeavour was only to fill up the lacunae pointed out by the respondents/defendants at the stage of final disposal of the suit. The Court below has also observed that permitting the said amendment would affect the very nature of the suit. The order of the Court below does not suffer from any patent illegality, nor can it be said to result in manifest injustice necessitating interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 24th June 2010 RRB