IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.No.2318 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 M/s.Vestas RRB (India) Limited rep. by its President Mr.S.D.Singh No.78, Vembuliamman Kovil Street, Virugambakkam Chennai-92. ... Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant Vs. Anulatha ... Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff Prayer: Petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 06.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.336 of 2007 in O.S.No.37 of 2006 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharathkumar For Respondent : Mr.B.Chandrasekaran for M/s.R.Subramanian & Associates ORDER The Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant has projected this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 06.07.2009 in I.A.No.336 of 2007 in O.S.No.37 of 2006 on the file of Learned Sub Judge, Poonamallee. 2.The trial Court, while allowing the I.A.No.336 of 2007 dated 06.07.2009, has among other things observed that 'the Respondent/ Plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration and injunction in the main suit initially and further at the time of inspection of the suit property by the Learned Advocate Commissioner, the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has not constructed the compound wall near the suit property and after the inspection of the suit property by the Commissioner, the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has suddenly raised the compound wall and therefore, the Respondent/Plaintiff has sought for an amendment of Plaint seeking the relief of recovery of possession and also compensation and resultantly, to avoid plurality of proceedings has allowed the application without costs.' 3.It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Defendant that the trial Court has passed an order dated 06.07.2009 in O.S.No.37 of 2006 mechanically in regard to the relief of recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation without appreciating the character of the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff. 4.Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Defendant that an amendment in law cannot be allowed as a matter of right and the well settled principle of law is that it shall not change the nature of the suit and introduce the new cause of action, but these aspects of the matter have not been adverted to by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective which has resulted an erroneous order being passed against the Revision Petitioner/Defendant. 5.In any event, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Defendant that the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.336 of 2007 in O.S.No.37 of 2006 dated 06.07.2009 is liable to be set aside to prevent an aberration of justice. 6.Conversely, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that the trial Court has assigned a cogent and convincing reason while allowing the application in I.A.No.336 of 2007 by specifically mentioning that when the Advocate Commissioner has inspected the suit property at the time the Revision Petitioner/ Defendant has not constructed a compound wall near the suit property and only thereafter, the Revision Petitioner has raised a compound wall near the suit property and accordingly, the amendment sought for by the Respondent/Plaintiff in respect of the Plaint to be amended for the relief of recovery of possession and for damages etc. In view of the fact that the said order is inconformity with the well laid down principles of law and the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.336 of 2007 need not to be disturbed by this Court at this distance of time. 7.This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and noticed their contentions. 8.It is not in dispute that the Respondent/Plaintiff has originally filed the present suit O.S.No.37 of 2006 for the relief of declaration and injunction. Later on, the Respondent/Defendant has filed the present I.A.No.336 of 2007 seeking amendment of Plaint for the relief of recovery of possession and for damages etc. 9.While deciding the application for an amendment, a Court of Law ought not to refuse a bonafide honest and legitimate amendment and at the same time should never permit dishonest or malafide amendment which is of no use, in the considered opinion of this Court. 10.If there is no material inconsistency between original averments in the Plaint and those proposed by the amendment, the amendment should be allowed in a liberal, pragmatic and commonsense approach. A grant of leave to amend the pleadings is the rule and refusal is the exception as opined by this Court. 11.As a General Rule liberty to amend the Plaint will be granted by a Court of Law so as to get at the route of the controversy that revolves between the parties in the subject matter of the suit based on pleadings. At the time of allowing the amendment application, it is the primordial duty of a Court of Law to take note of the issues raised by the parties based on the pleadings. 12.Also, a Court of Law will have to ensure that while allowing the amendment sought for as per Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, there is no injury being caused to the opposite side. It cannot be gainsaid that leave to amend ought to be granted always unless the party applying for the amendment has been acting not in a bona fide manner, or that by his blunder or lapse he has committed some injury to the opponent which could not be compensated for by cause or by other means. 13.At the time of allowing the amendment application, the trial Court is not supposed to go into the merits and demerits of the amendment. Also, a Court of law is to bear in mind whether the proposed amendment sought for should not be a substitute for a cause of action on the basis of which the original lis has been raised. An amendment which defeats a legal right to the other side on account of lapse of time should not be allowed by a Court of Law. Equally, no party ought to suffer on account of the technicalities of law. To put it shortly the amendment sought for should be allowed as a matter of right by the trial Court to reduce or minimize the litigation or to avoid plurality or multiplicity of proceedings. 14.In view of the above and taking an overall assessment and facts and circumstances of the present case which float on the surface, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the trial Court is quite correct in allowing the I.A.No.336 of 2007 praying for amendment of Plaint in regard to the recovery of the possession and for damages and the said order of the trial Court does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality. Viewed in that perspective, the Civil Revision Petition fails. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order of the trial Court in I.A.No.336 of 2007 in O.S.No.37 of 2006 dated 06.07.2009 is affirmed for the reasons assigned in this Revision. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 22.07.2011 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mps To The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. M.VENUGOPAL,J. mps C.R.P.No.2318 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 22.07.2011