A.N.VARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who is plaintiff before the Trial Court instituted a suit for cancellation of sale deed against opposite party No. 3. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner was dispossessed from over the property in question. An application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. was pre­ferred by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The Trial Court vide or­der dated 11.9.2008 rejected the application against which the petitioner ap­proached the Revisional Court. Vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2008 the revision too was dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment. As per his version it was during the pendency of the suit that the petitioner was dispossessed. The amendment sought to be introduced only was with a view to bring to the notice of the Court the subsequent event. As per his version, by proposed amendment nature of the suit is not altered, as such, the amendment ought to have been allowed. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties in opposition submitted that the petitioner was aware of the fact that he had been dispossessed but still on various dates having been fixed, at no point of time did he inform the Court re­garding dispossession. It was also asserted that after a lapse of about two years the application for amendment followed. According to him, cross-examination of both the sides is already complete and when the matter was ripe for hearing that application was preferred.
(3.) IT is settled proposition that amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings so far as it does not change the fundamental character of the suit. By proposed amendment the petitioner only sought relief of mandatory injunction to be added in the plaint.;