1. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2012 in O.S.No.576 of 2008 dated 21.03.2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Ambattur.

2. The case of the revision petitioner is that in the year 2007, he filed a suit for Permanent Injunction against the respondent in O.S.No.435 of 2007 in respect of the suit schedule of property and in the said suit he enjoyed an order of Interim Injunction, preventing the respondent to interfere with the peaceful possession of the revision petitioner. In said suit in O.S.No.435 of 2007, the respondent herein admitting the possession of the revision petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1745 of 2008 to restrain the revision petitioner from in any way altering or changing the physical structure of the suit property. Being so, in the year 2008, the respondent herein has filed the suit in hand in O.S.No.576 of 2008 for bare injunction on the ground that the revision petitioner has attempted to disturb his possession on 17.10.2008 by way of digging foundation in the suit property. While the above suit was pending, the respondent herein as plaintiff filed one another suit for declaration, in O.S.No.124 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur praying for the following reliefs namely,

1. Declaration of title over the suit property.

2. Directing the revision petitioner to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit property.

3. For Permanent injunction.

3. Thereupon the revision petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. before the trial Court to reject the plaint of the latter suit in O.S.No.124 of 2009. The said application though was erroneously dismissed by the Learned trial Judge, the order was challenged before this Court and came to be set aside set aside in the Civil Revision preferred by the revision petitioner and thereby the Plaint in O.S.No.124 of 2009 came to be rejected. In the said Civil Revision in CRP.No.2437 of 2010 it was held that the suit was not maintainable, since it was hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. Further it was held that best course would have been only an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment, whereas, the respondent cannot file a second suit in O.S.No.124 of 2009 for declaration, possession and injunction.

4. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that though there was no liberty or leave of this Court granted to the respondent to file any such application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., an Interlocutory Application in above I.A.No.6 of 2012 came to be filed by the respondent for amending the suit in O.S.No.576 of 2008 with reliefs for Declaration and Recovery of Possession. Such amendment sought by the respondent is unsustainable and impermissible under law, as the same is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. In the absence of specific direction or leave of this Court in the above civil revision, the above suit was sought to be amended by the respondent in the year 2012 for the relief of declaration, beyond the Limitation which commenced in the Year 2008 i.e. 26.09.2008 the date of filing of his Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1745 of 2008 to restrain the revision petitioner from in any way altering or changing the physical structure of the suit property. That apart, the amendment sought by the respondent is inadmissible, since it would entirely change the nature and character of the suit. However, the learned trial Judge on misconception of Law and Fact, as well as erring that this Court has permitted the respondent herein to file an application to amend the suit in O.S.No.576 of 2008, allowed the above I.A.No.6 of 2012 filed by the respondent. The said order is impugned herein.

5. I heard Mr. B. Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. A.K. Raghavulu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the entire records.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner wo