Amendment of plaint when to be denied.

The revision petitioners here in are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.431 of 1992 in the Court of District Munsif of Nilakottai. They filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their enjoyment of the suit property which is Survey No.381 /l 1-0.94 acres - Old Patta No.798, New Patta No. 1918 in Jambuthuraikottai Village, Nilakottai Taluk. The ad interim injunction obtained by them in I.ANo.694 of 1991 in that suit was vacated on 13. 1992. Alleging that subsequently the defendants have trespassed into the suit land and dispossessed them, they have come forward with I.A.No.387 of 1992 under O.6, Rule 17, C.P.C. to amend the plaint so as tosubstitute the relief of injunction by one for recovery of possession. Besides, stating that the trespass alleged is not true and that they are in enjoyment of the property since the date of their purchase on 10. 1979 the defendants did not give any valid objection for amending the plaint in their counter -statement. They only stated that the proposed amendment is not valid in law. The court below has dismissed the said application for the reason that as per the aver-men ts in the counter the defendants are in possession since the date of their sale deed on 10. 1979. And this revision is directed against the said order. After notice of motion, on common consent arguments were heard on this civil revision petition.

2. The trial court states that on consideration of the claims of both sides, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners/ plaintiffs. Evidently this is a non-speaking order and the court below has not stated the contentions of the respective parties and the reason for its conclusion.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that what is asked for by way of amendment is only an alternative prayer for possession because the trial court has negatived the injunction application. 0.6, Rule 17, C.P.C. provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In this case the proposed amendment does not alter the nature and character of the suit. In fact, it is necessary for determination of the rights of the parties. In Natesan v. Govindaswami, (1988) 2.L.W. 397, a suit for declaration and injunction was resisted by the defendants that they were in possession of the property and prescribed title by adverse possession. There upon plaintiff came forward with an application to amend the plaint substituting his relief of possession in the place of injunction. A single Judge of this Court has held that the amendment of plaint becomes important because of the fact that possession is claimed by the defendants and incase the trial court finds that they are in possession, then the plaintiffs will be without any effective remedy. It is only to avoid such a contingency and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the provisions in 0.6, Rule 17, C.P.C. are intended.

4. In Radhakrishnan v. Auvudai Ammal, (1993)1 M.L.J. 375, the petitioner originally filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit properties and for costs. The defendants stated in the written statement that they were in possession of the suit properties. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment seeking two new prayers, (i) for a declaration that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property, and (ii) for a direction to the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the plaint properties failing which to direct the Officer of the trial court to put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the suit properties. The trial court dismissed the application holding that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. In revi