C.T. Selvam, J.

This revision arises against the order of learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, passed in I.A.No.697 of 2014 in O.S.No.330 of 2005 on 18.01.2016.

2. Respondent has preferred O.S.No.330 of 2005 on the file of learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, seeking declaration of title to property and permanent injunction against interference with possession and enjoyment. Respondent moved I.A.No.697 of 2014 in O.S.No.330 of 2005 towards amending the plaint. Under order dated 18.01.2016, Court below allowed such application giving rise to the preference of this revision by petitioners/defendants.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in the affidavit in support of I.A. No. 697 of 2014 in O.S.No. 330 of 2005, respondent/plaintiff merely had informed that certain extents of the suit property had been acquired for formation of a National Highway and therefore, it was necessary to amend the plaint towards informing the correct extent of property. The affidavit made no whisper of petitioners/defendants having put up any illegal structure on suit property. While so, in the petition filed under Or.6 R.17 CPC, the relief of 'mandatory injunction directing defendants, their men, agents, to remove the illegal structure put up in the suit property' surreptitiously had been introduced and towards serving such end, an amendment in paragraph No.7 of the plaint had been introduced to the following effect:

"Add in Para : 7 of the plaint. The defendants had encroached upon the suit property and had put up construction between February 2014 and March 2014, without approval or permission from Local Authority. Then entry and putting up construction are illegal and the same has to be removed by the grant of relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants and their men to remove the illegal construction in the suit properties in default the plaintiff is entitled to remove the same through the process of this Honourable Court.”

5. Learned counsel submitted that in the written statement of the first defendant it had been contended that respondent/plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of particular extents in four survey fields where under the sale consideration had been fixed at Rs.12,000/-. Respondent/plaintiff has received an advance of Rs.1,000/- on 11.09.1969, the date of agreement and put the first defendant in possession. Time, was not of the essence, but even within the agreement period, respondent/plaintiff had received the balance sale consideration. In the written statement, it was further contended that respondent/plaintiff had informed as unnecessary the execution of sale deed and that he allowed first defendant to enjoy the suit property as a purchaser. It is the further contention of first defendant that being so in enjoyment and possession he had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his wife, the second defendant on 26.08.1991 and had put her in possession. The amendment has been sought 12 years after the date of plaint. Revision petitioners had no objection in allowing the amendment insofar as the same was towards informing the correct extent of property. However, having spoken in the affidavit merely regards the change in extent, respondent/plaintiff had sought amendments otherwise through the petition. Court below in allowing the same has gone about in a mechanical manner resulting in grave prejudice to petitioners/defendants. Learned counsel contended that the following prayers in the petition filed under Or.6 R.17 CPC could not have been permitted:

"1. Add in Para:7 of the plaint. The defendants had encroached upon the suit property and had put up construction between February 2014 and March 2014, without approval or permission from Local Authority. Then entry and putting up construction are illegal and the same has to be removed by the grant of relief of mandatory injunction directing the defe