The court emphasized the importance of considering the interest of justice and avoiding multiplicity of cases in allowing the amendment for redemption, while also highlighting the limitations on seeking compensation.

R. Tharani, J.

Heard Mr.M.S.Balasubramania, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed to modify the order dated 23.04.2015 made in I.A.No.112 of 2015 in O.S.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatty.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.62 of 2009 and they filed the case for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. As the respondents denied the redemption of mortgage and the suit has to be amended with an alternative prayer entitling the petitioner to redeem the property. The petition was dismissed by the lower Court and against the order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

4. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that the suit property belonged to the first petitioner. The first petitioner purchased the property on 26.10.1965 and he mortgaged the property with the first respondent on 18.11.1978 for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) and he redeemed the mortgage on 08.01.2003 and the first petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of the second petitioner on 11.06.1982 with regard to the schedule items 2 to 7 properties. Since the respondents tried to interfere the possession of the petitioners, the petitioners filed a suit and the respondents who are the defendants in the suit filed a written statement admitting the ownership of the petitioners but denied the redemption of mortgage claimed that the respondents are entitled in enjoyment of the property. It is further stated that the respondents claimed that the redemption receipt is with the petitioners and the petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The respondents filed a petition before this Court and the same was also dismissed. In this circumstances, the suit should be amended with the alternative prayer of redemption and for possession.

5. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the petition is time bared. The trial has already commenced and two witnesses on the side of the petitioners are examined and Exs.A1 to A12 and Exs.B1 to B3 documents were also marked. After the trial, the petitioners are not entitled to amend the plaint. The original suit was filed for prayer of injunction and the contention of the petitioners is that they are in possession of the property and the petitioners filed a petition for permission to prepare a fresh suit on the same cause of action and the copy of the petition was also served to the learned counsel for the respondents. Subsequently instead of filing that petition, this amendment petition is filed by the petitioners. The original case is for injunction. Now the petitioners wanted the alternative prayer for possession. The amendment will create a fresh cause of action and that will entirely change the character of the case. In the above circumstances, this petition could not be entertained. The present petition is filed only with a motive to drag on the case and prayed the petition is to be dismissed.

6. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that there is a difference between Section 153 of CPC and the provision under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and the lower Court failed to note that the proviso introduced by the amendment to the Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is not introduced by that amendment to Section 153 of CPC. The respondents were attempting to drag on the proceedings and thereby, attempt to squat on the property and enjoy the income of the properties and the amendment will not introduce any new cause of action. The suit for injunction can always be amended for the recovery of possession and such an amendment is always permissible. The claim of the petitioners is that there was mortgage and the same was redeemed. The claim of the respondents is that the mortgage is not redeemed. Allowing the element would not change the character of the case and the amendment will affect multiplicity of the proceedings