K. Shanmugham and Others vs S. Lakshmi Ammal

Jagadeesan, J.—The defendants in the suit have filed the above revision against the order, allowing an application for amendment of the

plaint in O.S. No. 410 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, praying for a relief of permanent injunction, restraining the

defendants therein from in any way interfering with the rights of the plaintiff to enjoy the suit property as common passage.

The Plaintiff, the respondent herein, has filed an application, I.A. No. 1401 of 1994 seeking for an amendment for the relief of mandatory

injunction on the ground that after the receipt of the order of interim injunction, the petitioners herein had constructed a septic tank in the suit

property which completely obstructed the suit common passage. Further, the petitioners have put up a balcony projecting the suit passage and as

these constructions have been put up pending the suit, the petitioners have filed the application for amendment of the plaint in order to seek the

relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants therein to remove the unauthorised construction erected over the suit property in the ground

level and above the ground level and also the balcony. The lower Court has considered the amendment sought for and allowed the same on the

ground that the relief sought for is based upon the subsequent event that took place during the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel for the

petitioners vehemently argued that the plaintiff cannot seek a dual relief in the case by seeking for an amendment. If the plaintiff is aggrieved due to

the subsequent events that took place, it is always open to the plaintiff to file a separate suit and she cannot be permitted to seek any relief in

respect of the subsequent events by way of amendment. I do not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. So long as

the cause of action for the original suit is not changed and when the other relief is based on the subsequent events that took place during the

pendency of the suit and the nature of the suit also is not changed, the amendment cannot be refused. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in

the order of the Court below and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.