Amendment of plaint sought by plaintiff.

Plaintiffs are the petitioners in this civil revision petition against the dismissal of their I.A.No.6274 of 1993 for amending their plaint in O.S.No. 10966 of 1989 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The said suit seeks permanent injunction against interference of their possession of the suit building. The proposed amendment seeks possession relief in the place of injunction relief.

2. Their averments in the said application are as follows: In I.A.No. 12690 of 1989, they got temporary injunction which has been confirmed by the first appellate court in C.M.A.No.28 of 1990 and by this Court in C.R.P.No.1826 of 1990. But the defendants respondents filed C.S.No.1826 of 1990 in this Court for declaration of title to the same suit land on the footing that the property was different. The said defendants also got temporary injunction against the plaintiffs herein on 8. 1990. But subsequently on the filing of O.S.A.No.85 of 1991 in this Court by the plaintiffs herein, the said injunction was stayed by order dated 27. 1991 and the said stay was also made absolute in C.M.P.No.5181 of 1991 therein. (The plaintiffs’ vendors have also filed O.S.No.1077 of 1992 in this Court for declaration that the above said suit property belongs to the plaintiffs herein). But the respondents have put up shops buildings in the suit land after committing criminal trespass over the present suit land. So, since they have thus forcibly taken possession from the plaintiffs pending the present suit, the petitioners have filed the abovesaid application for amendment of the plaint seeking possession relief with reference to the suit land after removing the superstructure put up by respondents. They also wanted suitable amendment of the body of the plaint introducing certain additional paragraphs narrating the abovesaid subsequent events and they also wanted suitable consequential amendment of paragraph 5 of the plaint altering the value of the suit to Rs. 1,50,000.

.3. In the counter affidavit to the said application, the respondents averred as follows: The plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit properly, but only the 2nd respondent has been in possession. The plaintiffs have been adopting all methods to see that they did not get on with the trial of the suit. The 2nd respondent purchased the property by the sale deed dated 112. 1987. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased on 28. 1988 only from the very same vendors. But, their sale deed is not true or valid. In the plaint dated 211. 1989, the plaintiffs have given some schedules, describing the suit property as T.S.No.31/1. But the said survey number is only read as per the revenue records C.S.No.659 of 1990 was filed with reference to T.S.No.31/23. The temporary injunction obtained in C.S.No.659 of 1990 on 8. 1990 was subsequently made absolute on 2. 1991. Between 5. 1990 and 2. 1991 only, the above said ship buildings were put up on the said land. The stay of injunction was obtained by the plaintiffs in O.S.A.No.85 of 1991 only on 4. 1991. The present suit was in the special list even on 211. 1992. But the plaintiffs took adjournments on several dates subsequently and after several adjournments, the suit was posted to 1. 1993. Then the plaintiffs filed transfer application and sought to get stay of the present suit. They also filed another transfer application and obtained ex pane order of stay of trial of the suit. Ultimately, on 3. 1993, both the transfer applications and the stay applications therein were dismissed by Lakshmanan, J., who also gave direction to the trial court to take up the suit forthwith for trial. Then the defendants filed an application to advance the hearing of the present suit, knowing well that the hearing of the suit has been advanced to an early date, accordingly, the plaintiffs have filed the present application for amendment of the plaint and another application for punishment for contempt. They are only abusing the process of Court