The belated Amendment introducing a new case causing prejudice to the defendants' accrued rights and defense warrants dismissal of the Amendment Application.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal in I.A.No.803 of 2000 in O.S.No.49 of 1999, dismissing the Amendment Application filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

2. O.S.No.49 of 1999:- According to the Plaintiff, the Suit Property in S.No.46/1, 47/1 in Kalappanayakkan Patti Village belongs to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff purchased the Suit Property from one Ayyammal by a Sale Deed dated 20.03.1973 for a sum of Rs.28,250/-. The Plaintiff is in enjoyment of the Suit Property. The Plaintiff’s property is on the Southern Side. His property is shown to be "P”, "P1” and the Well is "W1” in the plaint Plan. Case of the Plaintiff is that Cart Track leading from Kalappanayakkan Patti and Kollimalai Main Road proceeding in S.No.46/4 and 46/3 reaches the Plaintiff’s House marked as "H” in the Plaint Plan. According to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is in enjoyment of the Pathway as of right and also by easementary right. The Plaintiff is using the Pathway for taking the Cart, Tractor and Trailer and other vehicles. Defendants 1 and 2 who are owning the lands on the Southern Side asked the Plaintiff to sell away the Properties, which the Plaintiff declined. Hence, the Defendants have become inimical to the Plaintiff and causing disturbance to the Plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of his Properties.

3. Further case of the Plaintiff is that on 30.01.1998 on the North Eastern Side, the Defendants have obliterated the Pathway to a breadth of 1’2” to a length of about 300 feet. The Plaintiff has no other way excepting the path "ABCHFGILJ” to take his Cart, Tractor, Trailer and other Vehicles. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from preventing the Plaintiff from using the Suit Pathway. The Plaintiff has also filed the Suit for Mandatory Injunction, directing the Defendants to restore "AXY” portion as the Pathway.

4. Denying the allegations in the Plaint, the Defendants have filed the Written Statement contending that the Plaintiff has no right to take the Cart and Cattle. The Plaintiff wanted to widen the Suit Pathway to take Tractor, Trailer and Lorry, which the Defendants have refused. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the vexatious Suit and he is not entitled to any relief.

5. The Suit was posted in the Special List. At that stage, the Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.803 of 2000 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C to amend the Plaint. According to the Plaintiff, certain mistakes have crept in, in the description of the properties and in the Plaint averments. According to him, on the North of LJ Portion, mistake has crept in stating that the property belongs to one Muthusamy Gounder. According to the Plaintiff, on the South of XY, the land belongs to the First Defendant in S.No.114/3 of Thirumalaigiri Village, on the Northern Side of S.No.114/3, the Defendants have cut and reduced the Pathway. On the Northern Side of "LJ” portion, the property in S.No.114/2B belongs to one Ramasamy Gounder (mistaken stated as Muthusamy Gounder) of Kalappanayakkan Patti. Further West of S.No.114/3 is the property belonging to the Defendant in S.No.46/6. Further West of it is S.No.46/5, which is "VELLAVARI”. When the Commissioner was about to visit the Suit locality, the Defendants have obliterated portions of the Suit Pathway and planted Coconut Saplings and also planted stones. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Amedment Application to amend the Plaint averments.

6. Resisting the Application for Amendment, the Defendants have filed the Counter Statement, denying planting of Coconut Saplings and also Stones. Only to prevent the Defendants from enjoying their paddy land, the Suit has been filed and the Amendment Application has been belatedly filed.

7. Upon careful consideration of contentions of both the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the Amendment Application mainly