M.V. Muralidaran, J.

1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.355 of 2013 in O.S. No.189 of 2012 dated 02.08.2013, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Chengam.

2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he has filed the suit against the defendants suit for easement right in respect of 'B' schedule property and for permanent injunction.

3. Further case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that when the suit was filed, there was a cart track in the B schedule property is in existence, but the said cart track was destroyed by the respondent/defendant before two days of visiting by the Advocate Commissioner, since the petitioner has filed the application for appointing of the Advocate Commissioner and the Court passed an order of appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the existence of the cart track. While the Advocate Commissioner was inspected the suit schedule of property, he note down in his report that cart track was destroyed before 2 days of the visiting of the Advocate Commissioner. Accordingly, he filed the report by mentioning the same.

4. The plaintiff also states that in the month of February 2013, this respondent/defendant engaged a tractor and destroyed the entire cart track in the B schedule of property and hence the petitioner/plaintiff has given a complaint to the concerned police by narrating the above said facts. But, the destroy of the cart track was not mentioned in the plaint, but the Advocate Commissioner report made clear that the said cart track destroyed before 2 days of the Advocate Commissioner visit. Therefore, he sought for to amend the plaint in the pleadings and the prayer as prayed for and hence, he filed the above I.A.No355 of 2013 to amend the plaint has given the detail in the petition and details of amendments are as follows:

"Add Para 8(A) in the plaint:

The plaintiff submits that even before the inspection of the 'B' schedule property by the Advocate/Commissioner, the defendant violated the injunction order and destroyed the portion of the 'B' schedule property during the 1st week of October 2012. Therefore during the 2nd week of February 2013 the defendant by engaging a tractor destroyed the entire cart-track in the 'B' schedule property high handly for which the plaintiff preferred a complaint against the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit to restore the cart-track in the 'B' schedule property and in default through the process of Court.

Add in the cause of action para 9: after through the 'B' schedule property "during the 1st week of October 2012 when the defendant destroyed the portion of the cart-track in the 'B' schedule property, during the 2nd week of February 2013 when the defendant high handly destroyed the entire 'B' schedule property".

Remove in para 11(A) and for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants from in any manner obliterating the road in the 'B' schedule property and insert the same place as follows: for the grant of mandatory injunction to restore the road as inexistence in the 'B' schedule property and in default through the process of Court.

Remove in the Particulars of valuation for the grant of permanent injunction and insert in the same place as for the grant of mandatory injunction to restore the road in the 'B' schedule property. Remove the relief of permanent injunction and add in the same as "The relief of mandatory injunction". and hence he prayed the trial Court to allow the application by amending the plaint.

5. On receipt of the notice, the respondents/defendants has filed counter affidavit stating that in his counter the respondents/defendants has denied the entire allegations contended in the petition. He also states that under the guise of amendment sought for the by the petitioner in the plaint is trying to introduce new property for which he has not produced any documentary proof of evidence to substantiate the p