Judgment :- 1. Defendants 6 and 9 in O.S. No. 812 of 1973 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Poonamallee, are the petitioners in this revision. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. The suit is one for partition. A preliminary decree was passed on 31st April, 1965 and I.A. No. 1156 of 1965 was taken out by the plaintiff to pass a final decree. On obtaining the Commissioners report, the division of ‘A’ schedule properties, which originally consisted of eight items, could not be effectuated, because the Commissioner found mistakes in the description of the items, Hence, a final decree was passed only in respect of ‘C’ schedule properties, leaving open the question of division of ‘A’ schedule properties to a later stage. The plaintiff took out two applications, one I.A. 1520 of 1974 and another I.A. 2096 of 1978, for amendment of the plaint and consequentially the preliminary decree, seeking to bring in four more items to ‘A’ schedule properties as items 9 to 12, besides other corrections. The defendants contested those applications mainly taking a technical objection that after the passing of the preliminary decree, there could not be bringing in of any more items and the consequential amendment of the preliminary decree. This technical objection was overruled and those applications were allowed. The was no adjudication on the merits of the case of the parties with regard to these new items. It is admitted that the plaint as such was not amended; amended copies of the plaint were not served on the defendants; the defendants were not given an opportunity to controvert the amended pleas in the plaint with reference to the new items brought in by filing any additional written statement, and stating their case as to the availability or otherwise of these new items for partition; no additional issues were raised; no adjudication given over this controversy and the preliminary decree was not amended after such resolution of the controversy. What seemed to have happened is that amendments in the preliminary decree were straight way carried out. On facts, it must be stated that such a process is unknown to substantive law as well at the procedural one. The normal process got short-circuited, practically abrogating valuable rights of the defendants. What seemed to have happened is that amendments in the preliminary decree were straight way carried out. On facts, it must be stated that such a process is unknown to substantive law as well at the procedural one. The normal process got short-circuited, practically abrogating valuable rights of the defendants. It is needless to point out that the process adopted wholly lacked jurisdiction and the amendments incorporated in the preliminary decree with regard to the new items are wholly unsustainable. The matter could not fall within the category of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission to warrant correction or amendment of the decree only. Equally so, it is not a case of any patent defect or error in any proceeding. Hence, the amendment; incorporated in the preliminary decree without amending the plaint and trying the cause as per the amended pleas regarding these four items item 9 to 12, were patently illegal and cannot be allowed to stand. Fortunately for the defendants, an opportunity presented itself to them subsequently, when the plaint was amended and they hastened to agitate for their right to file an additional written statement to have the illegal and irregular process, which has preceded, set aright, as could he seen from the facts which transpired subsequently. 2. The matter rested there for some time and in 1980, I.A. No. 350 of 1980 was taken out by the plaintiff for passing a final decree. In this application, a substantial contention was raised that there had been no amendment of the plaint as such, affording an opportunity to the defendants to file an additional written statement with reference to these four new items added on. It is admitted that subsequently the plaint ‘A’ schedule itself was amended with reference to these four new items and amended copy of the plaint was filed into court. At this stage and on the basis of the amended plaint, the defendants sought permission to file an additional written statement and by order, dated 5th December, 1951 in I.A. 350 of 1980, the court below declined to accord the sanction and this revision is directed against the said order of the court below. 3. Mr. At this stage and on the basis of the amended plaint, the defendants sought permission to file an additional written statement and by order, dated 5th December, 1951 in I.A. 350 of 1980, the court below declined to accord the sanction and this revision is directed against the said order of the court below. 3. Mr. T.R. Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that his clients grievances are only with regard to the new items and when four new items have been brought into the ‘A’ schedule propertys as items 9 to 12 and since the plaint has been amended only now, the defendants are entitled to file an additional written statement, controverting the tenability of seeking partition of these four new items, and the denial of an opportunity in this regard by the Court below is unsustainable. Learned counsel further points out that the bare amendments straightway incorporated in the preliminary decree without amending the plaint, are wholly without jurisdiction and against law and that it need not stand in the way of this Court granting the appropriate reliefs in the interests of justice and equity. An overall appraisal of the facts of the case compels me to sustain the submissions of the learned counsel. Admittedly, there had been no amendment of the plaint ‘A’ schedule as required by the plaintiff; and in implementation of the orders passed in I.A. 1520 of 1974 and I.A. 2096 of 1978, straightway the preliminary decree seemed, to have been amended. There had been no testing of the merits of the case of the parties with reference to these four new items brought into ‘A’ schedule properties. In this view, the amendments incorporated in the preliminary decree must be held to be without jurisdiction and I have already given above the reasons therefor. It is fundamental that where a pleading is allowed to be amended, an opportunity should be afford to the opposite party to meet the new case by filing any additional statement, and there should be a further testing of the case of the parties on the amende d pleadings. As stated above, the plaint was amended only subsequently and the defendants coveted permission to file an additional written statement. As stated above, the plaint was amended only subsequently and the defendants coveted permission to file an additional written statement. The fact that even anterior to the amendment of the plaint and the adherence to the legal process pursuant thereto, there was an amendment of the preliminary decree, is of no legal consequence at all. Instead of the amendment to the preliminary decree following the amendment of the plaint and adjudication of such amended pleadings, the position has been reversed and grave hardship and injustice have resulted to the defendants, by this unorthodox, illegal and highly irregular process. When the matter is brought to the notice of this Court in revision, I do not think there is any impediment in ignoring these amendments carried Out to the preliminary decree and issuing the appropriate directions to set right the matters so that the proceedings would be not only in tune with law, but also with the principles of justice and equity. The powers under S. 115, C.P.C. are intended to be exercised with a view to subserve the ends of justice and technicalities need not stand in its way. I am inclined to interfere in revision, since substantial injustice has been rendered to the defendants by the process adopted by the court below. In view of the exceptional facts and circumstances of the case, it will not be proper to put against the defendants their laches, if any, in not attacking the earlier amendments incorporated in the preliminary decree, which I view, as one done without jurisdiction. If the present order under revision is set aside, the result is, the defendants will have to file an additional written statement as asked for by them, and only after the matter is tested as per the amended pleadings, there may be a warrant for amending the preliminary decree on the basis of which alone final decree proceedings could be prosecuted. Consequently, the amendments earlier incorporated in the preliminary decree pursuant to the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 1520 of 1974 and 2097 of 1978, as regards the new items 9 to 12, are concerned, will have to be ignored and the contentions of the parties will have to be settled afresh. Otherwise, the allowing of this revision will be meaningless and ineffectual. This is the only way to work out the rights of the parties. 4. 1520 of 1974 and 2097 of 1978, as regards the new items 9 to 12, are concerned, will have to be ignored and the contentions of the parties will have to be settled afresh. Otherwise, the allowing of this revision will be meaningless and ineffectual. This is the only way to work out the rights of the parties. 4. For all the above reasons, the revision is allowed, and I direct that the amendments carried out to the preliminary decree, introducing items 9 to 12 to ‘A’ schedule properties pursuant to the orders in I.A. Nos. 1520 of 1974 and 2096 of 1978 will stand deleted in respect of the aforesaid four items, and the petitioners-defendants 6 and 9 will be afforded an opportunity by the court below to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint in respect of these four new items added on, and afte r the contentions of the parties are adjudicated on the amended and additional pleadings, raising additional issues, if any, the court below will consider the propriety or otherwise of amending the preliminary decree and after such decision, and following all the requisite process pursuant thereto, the court below will permit the plaintiff to prosecute the final decree proceedings. There will be no order as to costs in this revision. 5. The Court below will keep in mind that the suit is of the year 1963 and the requisite processes, as indicated above, will be prosecuted expeditiously without any delay. Learned counsel representing the parties also assure that no undue adjournments will be taken in the prosecution of the proceedings before the court below.