ORDER: The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.1000 of 1990 are the petitioners herein who have filed the above civil revision petition praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 13.6.1996 made in I.A.No.423 of 1996 in the said suit by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Salem.

2. In fact, the petitioners in the civil revision petition who are the plaintiffs in the suit have filed the petition in I.A.No.423 of 1996 before the Court below under O.6, Rule 17, C.P.C., praying to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint and the said petition having come to be dismissed with costs, the petitioners therein have come forward to institute the above revision on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of civil revision petition.

3. The contentions of the petitioners before the trial Court are that they have filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit properties; that a petition filed along with the suit praying to grant an order of interim injunction was also pending disposal; that on account of the respondents obstructing a mamool pathway leading to the petitioners’ lands, further trespassing into a portion of the suit property, yet another suit in O.S.No.863 of 1994 had also been filed for recovery of possession of the encroached portion of 60 cents; that by oversight, the petitioner failed to amend the suit in hand to recover possession of the 60 cents trespassed by the first defendant and since at present he is advised that he should suitably amend the plaint to include the prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the 60 cents of land on the south side of the suit property the petitions had to file the said petition.

4. On the part of the respondents therein, they would file the counter stating thereby that the trial had commenced in the suit and the evidence on the petitioner’s side was also recorded and that P.W.1 was also cross-examined wherein he had deposed to the effect that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property from the year 1990; that in the circumstances of the case wherein the petitioners have also filed another suit in O.S.No.863 of 1994, the amendment sought for is invalid in law; that in order to dispossess defendants 2 and 4 with wrong allegation that these defendants encroached into 60 cents of lands into the suit property on 3.9.1994, the petitioners have come forward to file the amendment petition with ulterior motives and if the same is allowed, that too at the stage when the suit is under trial, great prejudice would be caused to the rights of the respondents and if at all the petitioners could seek his remedy in the suit filed specifically for that purpose and would oppose the petition vehemently thus, ultimately praying to dismiss the same.

5. The Court below, in consideration of the above facts and circumstances brought forth and having regard to the position of law, would not only remark that the petition had been filed to fill up the lacuna caused in the trial of the suit due to cross examination of the petitioner/ plaintiff by the respondents and if the petitioner is allowed to carry out the amendment sought to be introduced, it would cause prejudice to the respondents and further commenting that it is a suit for bare injunction and had been filed in the year 1990 and subsequent to the filling of the same, a change of circumstance has been brought forth warranting the amendment as per the petitioner, but since the same is at the close of the petitioner’s evidence, in these circumstances, it is not desirable to allow the amendment petition and would ultimately in the interest of justice, the lower Court would dismiss the said petition with costs.

6. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would cite three already decided cases which are as follows:

(i) Gopal Pillai v. Dr.Swamy, (1990)1 L.W. 363; (ii) Radhakrishnan v. Avudai Ammal, (1993)1 M.L.J. 375; (iii) P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document