Judgment :- This revision has been preferred against allowing the I.A.9958 of 2000 by which the learned Trial Judge permitted the Plaintiff, respondent herein to amend Paragraph 10 of the averments stated in the Plaint. 2. Originally the suit was filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner selling, alienating, encumbering or otherwise dealing with the A Schedule property and also restraining them from demolishing the building at the A Schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the suit was filed believing that the Schedule A property belongs to the first defendants father. But after filing of the suit the plaintiff applied for a certified copy of the sale deed in Document No.430 of 1971 in respect of the said property and has now come to know that the said property belongs to the plaintiffs grand mother late G.Subbulakshmi. It is only due to inadvertence and mistake of fact the plaintiff has stated in the plaint as if the property belongs to the plaintiffs grand father late Gopal. Therefore, it is essential and necessary to amend Paragraph 10 of the Plaint. 3. The learned Trial Judge allowed the said application. In fact when the matter was called on that day, there was no representation in the morning and after pausing of the matter by 3.40 pm., again the matter was taken up and again there was no representation and therefore the application was allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contended that the learned Trial Judge has not passed a detailed or speaking order and in fact the defendants were not set exparte by the learned Trial Judge for their absence. Such a technical objection cannot be countenanced taking into consideration of the merits of the application. 5. Admittedly the revision petitioners/defendants were absent when the matter was called before the learned trial judge. The plaintiff filed the suit believing that the Schedule A property belongs to the first defendants father. But after filing of the suit, the plaintiff applied for a certified copy of the sale deed in Document No.430 of 1971 in respect of the said property and has now come to know that the said property belongs to the plaintiffs grand mother late G.Subbulakshmi. But after filing of the suit, the plaintiff applied for a certified copy of the sale deed in Document No.430 of 1971 in respect of the said property and has now come to know that the said property belongs to the plaintiffs grand mother late G.Subbulakshmi. It is only due to inadvertence and mistake of fact the plaintiff has stated in the plaint as if the property belongs to the plaintiffs grand father late Gopal. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge is correct in allowing the application since the amendment sought for by the plaintiff is essential and necessary. 6. In Ragu Thilak D.Joghn Vs. S.Rayappan& Ors, reported in 2001 (1) Supreme 328 , the Apex Court held thus:- "5. After referring to the judgments in Charan Das V. Amir Khan (AIR 1921 PC 50), L.J.Leach & Co Ltd., & Anr V. Jardine Skinner & Company ( 1957 SCR 438 ), Smt.Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kuamr & Ors ( 1974 (2) SCC 393 ), M/s.Ganesh Trading Co., V.Moji Ram ( 1978 (2) SCC 91 ), and various other authorities, this Court in BKN.Pillai Vs. P.Pllai and another (JT.1999 (10) SC 61),held: "The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it s equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation". 7. The above decisions squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation". 7. The above decisions squarely apply to the facts of the present case. This is a case where the plaintiff could not have incorporated these pleadings before the commencement of the trial, since it is his case that only pending the suit after getting the certified copy of the document they came to know about the previous ownership of the suit property. In fact the trial court should not stand on technicalities and rightly took note of the fact that if the proposed amendment is not allowed, substantial justice cannot be done. Therefore by amending the plaint reliefs which is only consequential, no injury or injustice is going to be caused to the defendants. Moreover by amending the plaint relief consequent to the amendment to paragraph 10 of the Plaint averments, the same will not change the character of the suit or it will introduce a new cause of action. 8. In these circumstances, this CRP is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. No costs.