Judgment :- Aggrieved over the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.19662 of 2006 in O.S.No.6284 of 2005 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 12. 2006, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed a suit against the respondents for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property, for payment of past and future damages for the use and occupation of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating and encumbering A schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant sold the suit property to the second defendant and it came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only on 19. 2006 when they were furnished with certified copies, subsequent to the filing of the above suit. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.19662 of 2006 for amendment of the plaint with further prayer for declaration that the sale deed dated 111. 2005 is null and void. 3. After contest the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved over the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. Mr.M.K.Hidayatullah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners came to know about the sale only during the course of cross-examination of D.W.1 that the property was sold by first defendant to the second defendant during the pendency of the suit and that the amendment sought for is imperative and unavoidable. 5. The learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil court, Chennai dismissed the said application on the ground that the second defendant purchased the property pendente lit; that therefore he has taken risks and that the amendment sought for is unnecessary. 6. In a judgment in the case of Hi. Sheet industries, a partnership firm, carrying on business at 61-D, D.V.Road, Ambur Town, Vellore District vs. Litelon Limited, having its office at No.68, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Hosur, rep. 6. In a judgment in the case of Hi. Sheet industries, a partnership firm, carrying on business at 61-D, D.V.Road, Ambur Town, Vellore District vs. Litelon Limited, having its office at No.68, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Hosur, rep. by its Managing Partner S.Gokul and others, reported in 2006(5) CTC 609 , wherein Full Bench of this court held as follows: "(1) that the delay in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings is not fatal when no serious prejudice is shown to have caused to the opposite party so as to take away any accrued right and the Court should take notice of the subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation to preserve and safeguard the rights of both the parties and to sub serve the ends of justice and while doing so, the Court was not justified in allowing or disallowing the amendments so as to defeat the valuable rights of the parties and amendments of pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversy in the suit and while doing so, the Court should not go into the correctness of falsity of the main case and it should not record the finding on the merits of the amendment as it should be done only during the trial of the suit. (2)According to the Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court has no option except to allow the amendment for adding a prayer for damages. This being the provision of law, the same should be allowed. (3)The Proviso Order 6,Rule 17 of Act 22 of 2002 is applicable to the pleadings instituted with effect from 7. 2002 and not to the pleadings instituted prior to 7. 2002 and while considering the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the Court has to examine in detail and commencement of trial must be understood as final hearing of the suit i.e. examination of witnesses, filing of documents, addressing of arguments, etc. and the Court should not forget its unfettered discretion to allow the amendment after applying itself the judicial discretion, if there is no negligence on the part of the party. and the Court should not forget its unfettered discretion to allow the amendment after applying itself the judicial discretion, if there is no negligence on the part of the party. (4)Before parting with the decisions, we are tempted to cite a paragraph from a case Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung, AIR 1922 PC 249: "All rules of Court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is therefore essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change, by means of amendment, the subject matter of the suit." 7. In this case, the amendment sought for is because of the later development after filing of plaint. By allowing the amendment multiplicity of the proceedings may be prevented. 8. In the circumstances the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed. The learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.