Petition for amendment of plaint filed by plaintiff allowed.

The civil revision petition is taken up today for final disposal by consent of parties. This revision is fried against the order made in an application for amendment of plaint in IA.No.19921 of 1991 in O.S.No.9306 of 1989 on the file of the learned XVII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, dismissing the application filed under O.6. Rule 17 and Sec.151, C.P.C. The original plaint is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and men or every one claiming under them or acting on their behalf from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, more fully described in the Schedules A,B and C in the plaint and for costs. In this application for amendment the plaintiff seeks to introduce certain facts which are detailed by him in his application and the plaintiff also seeks to introduce two new prayers (i) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property more fully described in the schedule A, B and C, and (ii) for a direction to the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the plaint, A, B and C Schedule properties to the plaintiff within the time to be fixed by the trial court failing which to direct the office, of the trial court to put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the abovesaid schedule properties. The second prayer for delivery of vacant possession is an alternative one. The alternative prayer has been taken up by the plaintiff possibly on the ground that the defendants have stated in the written statement that they are in possession of the suit properties. The trial court dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit.

2. In this revision Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proposed two prayers are only in the nature of additional reliefs on the pleadings already made in the plaint. In the original plaint, there is a pleading that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit properties. In para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as full owner thereof and he is exercising all the acts of ownership. Further, the plaintiff has stated that he has got patta in his name and that in pursuance of the sanctioned plan granted by the Corporation of Madras, he has put up construction in the suit properties in his capacity as full owner thereof. In the cause of action paragraph, the plaintiff has stated that he had purchased the suit properties on 17. 1985 and that he has been put in possession thereof in pursuance of the sale deed and from which date the plaintiff has been exercising all acts of ownership over the suit properties. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that/or the past one week, the defendants are making attempts to trespass upon the suit properties with the help of rowdy elements and that the plaintiff has protested against the same. Therefore, Mr. T.V.Ramanujam, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no charge of cause of action nor any new suit has been introduced by way of this amendment. According to him, the order of the lower court refusing amendment is illegal. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in Narayanan Chet-tiarv. Rathinasabapathy Ayyar and others, 29 M.L.J. 464 (D.B.). The Division Bench has observed as follows:

"Where the plaint as originally presented asked merely for a declaration that a decree obtained by the plaintiff against the defendants’ father was binding on them but subsequently a prayer was allowed to be added by way of amendment of the plaint seeking for a direction to the defendants to pay the amount of the decree."

While narrating the facts of the case, the Division Bench stated as follows:

"On 28. 1901, the plaintiff obtained a decree on a promissory note against defendants’ father in O.S.No.295 of 1901. During the