K KANDALINGA PANDIAN Vs. R GNANASIGAMANI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the ninth defendant in O.S.No.1058 of 1996 pending before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. He has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 29.12.2005 made in I.A.No.9185 of 1998 in O.S.No.1058 of 1996 wherein and by which the first respondent's petition for amendment to the Schedule to the plaint was allowed.

(2.) THE first respondent is the only surviving plaintiff in O.S.No.1058 of 1996 which was filed for the purpose of dissolution of partnership and to render true and proper accounts of the first defendant firm from 09.3.1983 and also for payment of plaintiff's 1/3rd share of the ascertained amount. Pending the suit, the first respondent/plaintiff took out an application in I.A.No.9185 of 1998 seeking that the house property and ground in Door No.88, Nainiappa Naicken Street, Park Town, Chennai, should be added as item No.6 to the Schedule appended to the plaint. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the said property was purchased with the funds of the firm. THErefore, it should be included in the list of properties of the firm. THE defendants 1 and 3 did not raise any objection and the defendants 2, 4, 6 and 11 remained exparte. It is only the ninth defendant, who had contested the said application. THE contention of the ninth defendant was that if the amendment is allowed, it will amount to a new pleading. However, the trial Court, by its order dated 29.12.2005, allowed the interim application and directed that the property at 88, Nainiappa Naicken Street should be added as sixth item in the Schedule to the plaint. It was also stated that the said property was purchased by Santhosha Nadar and his sons, viz., the firm, and cheque was also given in the name of the firm only.

(3.) FURTHER, in the decision reported in 2003 (3) CTC 454 [P.Lakshmanan vs. M.Krishnappa and another], the earlier decision reported in 2002 (1) CTC 618 was followed and it related to a case where an application was filed under Order 6 Rule XVII CPC praying for amendment of the plaint and the matter was pending on appeal before this Court. In that case, the request for amendment was dismissed for want of credibility and the reasons on the part of the petitioner for filing such application and this Court declined the order of the trial Court.