Judgment :- (Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 29.12.2005 in I.A.No.9185 of 1998 in O.S.No.1058 of 1996, on the file of VIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.) 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. I have heard the arguments of Mr.K.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.C.Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and have perused the records. 4. 3. I have heard the arguments of Mr.K.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.C.Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and have perused the records. 4. Mr.K.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner took this Court to some of the documents filed by him in the typed set including the sale deed marked as Ex.R.1 dated 27.6.1967 to show that it was purchased as a private property. He also referred to the order of this Court dated 23.3.1994 made in O.S.A.No.286 of 1993 wherein the first respondent was made as a joint receiver to deal with the business and, therefore, she was very much aware of the items of the property and she cannot be allowed to plead that by oversight, she has omitted to mention the property and she also referred to the order dated dated 08.6.1994 in application in 4878 of 1995 in C.S.No.527 of 1989 to show that she got herself impleaded in the suit and, therefore, he contended that it was not an innocuous application and it would amount to alteration of the case set up by the plaintiff. 5. He also relied upon the decisions of this Court reported in 2002 (1) CTC 618 [Palaniammal vs. V.K.Ramanathan and 4 others], 2003 (3) CTC 454 [P.Lakshmanan vs. M.Krishnappa and another] and 2006 (1) CTC 55 [S.Ahmed Meeran vs. S.Kumaraswamy] in support of his contention that under Order 6 Rule XVII CPC will apply to the facts of the present case. 6. In the decision reported in 2002 (1) CTC 618 [Palaniammal vs. V.K.Ramanathan and 4 others], it is a case relating to the plaintiff filing an application taking note of the subsequent developments for the restoration of water supply with a prayer of mandatory injunction. This Court, in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the order, has categorically held as follows: "Para 13: Firstly it has to be pointed out that the Courts cannot go into the truth or falsity of the claim made in the application and it cannot giving finding on merits of the case without first allowing the amendment and framing issues. That being so, there is no substance in this contention raised by the second respondent." ............... ................... .................... ............... ................... .................... That being so, there is no substance in this contention raised by the second respondent." ............... ................... .................... ............... ................... .................... Para 16: To sum up the legal position, (1) The power to allow amendment is wide and hence the Court should not adopt hyper technical approach but on the other hand liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. (2) The general rule is that the party is not allowed to set up new case or new cause of action. (3) Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the administration of justice between the parties and amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation. (4) Courts cannot go into the truth or falsity of the proposed amendments sought for at the time of considering the application for amendment. (5) All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken. (6) All reliefs ancillary to main relief and reliefs which are in the nature of additional reliefs should be allowed as general rule. (7) Even if a party or its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed but however, the party who is put to inconvenience should be suitably paid. The Court has to only see that the error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued. (8) The delay in filing petition for amendment should be properly compensated by cost and the error or mistake, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement." I do not know as to how this case will help the case of the petitioner. 7. 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. 7. 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. 8. In 2006 (1) CTC 55 [S. Ahmed Meeran vs. S. Kumaraswamy], it was a case relating to the plaintiff seeking to amend the prayer after the examination of P.W.1 was over and thereafter, an amendment was made seeking for a declaratory relief especially when the plaintiff was questioned in cross-examination about the same. This Court held that the said proposed amendment will seriously prejudice the case of the defendants and, therefore, held that the order of the trial Court allowing the said application was erroneous. These two cases do not support the case of the revision petitioner. 9. On the contrary, the first respondent/plaintiff's contention that by oversight, she did not include the said property has to be accepted. Further, even though she might have been a joint receiver based on the order passed by this Court, the present contention is that the property in question was purchased out of the business of the firm and, therefore, it should be included in the firm's account. The present amendment is only to the schedule and the body of the plaint has not been amended. The documents produced by the revision petitioner can well be a defence to show that the property does not belong to the firm and it was a private property. At this stage of amendment, the Court need not go into the merits of the claims of the parties. 10. In the light of the above, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The first respondent is directed to amend the plaint and proceed with the case. 10. In the light of the above, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The first respondent is directed to amend the plaint and proceed with the case. Considering the fact that it was the suit of the year 1996, the trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and both parties are directed to cooperate in getting on with the suit without causing any further delay. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 will stand closed.