Mr. Ekambaram vs Rani Ammal (died) and Others

G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the order dated 19.09.2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Madurantakam in I.A. No. 1028

of 2007 in O.S. No. 91 of 2002, this civil revision petition is focussed.

Heard both sides.

A summation and summarisation of the case of the revision petitioner as stood exposited from the records could be portrayed thus:

The respondents 1 to 8/plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction as against the revision petitioner and respondents 9 to 12. During the pendency of the

suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1028 of 2007 seeking amendment so as to get incorporated the prayer for possession and declaration. The trial

Court also allowed the application, despite objection raised by the revision petitioner. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the

Court below, this revision petition has been filed on various grounds.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that admittedly and

indubitably, as on the date of the filing the suit and for that matter long before filing of the suit itself, the petitioner had come into possession and

enjoyment of the suit property and he continues to be so; while so the plaintiffs were not justified in filing the suit for permanent injunction; the

plaintiffs were not legally correct in seeking amendment of the plaint so as to replace the prayer for permanent injunction with that of the prayers for

declaration of title and for possession, which amount to changing the nature of the suit and also changing the entire cause of action.

I find considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is a trite proposition of law that amendments could

be allowed for amending the plaint, but if the nature of the amendment sought is such that it is capable of changing the nature of the suit as well as

the cause of action and also if it is in the form of capitalising one''s own laches, then such amendments should not be allowed.

Here as on the date of filing of suit, to the knowledge of the plaintiffs themselves, the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the

suit property and in such a case, the amendment sought was totally untenable and the lower Court without adhering to all these salient points,

simply allowed the I.A.1028 of 2007 in toto, which warrants interference. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in the I.A. No.

1028 of 2007, the petitioner also made a prayer for rectifying the survey number from 99/5 to 99/9 and 99/10. The petitioner being dominus litis it

is upto him to prove the case before the lower Court and hence to that much extent alone amendment is permitted. Accordingly, in the order dated

19.09.2007 of the lower Court, except the above said amendment, the rest of the prayers for declaration and possession are set aside. This civil

revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

In this factual matrix, it is for the plaintiffs to work out their remedy before the lower Court in respect of their existing prayer for injunction in the

suit.