The court cannot grant relief beyond what is specifically sought in the plaint, emphasizing the necessity of amending the plaint for additional relief.

JUDGMENT :

J. NISHA BANU, J.

Since the issue involved in both the writ appeals are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The present Writ Appeals are directed against the Common order passed by the Writ Court dated 29.11.2021 made in W.P(MD)Nos.19769 and 20413 of 2021.

3.The short facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petitions are that the appellants/writ petitioners had the benefit of being allotted with shops at Kamarajan Bus stand – shopping complex. The administration of the said shopping complex comes under the purview of the Dindigul Corporation. The appellants/writ petitioners have been regularly paying the rent for the shops allotted to them. Meanwhile, the appellants/writ petitioners' licence and lease was extended by the second respondent from 03.02.2017 to 02.02.2026. While being so, the second respondent issued a circular stating that the petitioners' shops including other shops will be demolished and assured them that they would be allotted with new shops without any condition.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that after completion of the construction work, since the second respondent did not allot shops for the appellants/writ petitioners, the appellants/writ petitioners have initiated civil suits before the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul in O.S.Nos.505 of 2017 and 473 of 2017. During pendency of the suits, the second respondent filed an affidavit of undertaking that if the shops were demolished or reconstructed, then the appellants would have the benefit of being allotted with one such shop. The said undertaking memos were recorded. Since the same were not considered, the appellants made a representation before the respondents 1 and 2 on 25.10.2021 to act in accordance with the undertaking letters given by the second respondent. Since the second respondent has not taken any steps to hand over the shops as per the undertaking memos, dated 17.04.2018, the appellants/writ petitioners have filed the Writ Petitions.

5.The writ Court, after considering the materials available on record, dismissed the Writ Petitions, wherein, it is held as follows:

“8.A perusal of the judgments of the District Munsif Court which were all dated 27.04.2021, indicate that there was an objection in marking the said undertaking Memos. But, however, with objections, they were marked as documents on behalf of the plaintiffs.

9.Finally, the learned District Munsif in the course of the judgments, after taking note of the memos and also framing specific issues with respect to reallotment of the shops to the petitioners, found against the petitioners herein, and in effect, dismissed the suit. One of the main grounds, on which, the suit was dismissed, was that the petitioners filed suits only for injunction restraining the second respondent/Corporation Commissioner from interfering with peaceful possession, but pursuant to the filing of the memo, they had not taken any steps to amend the plaint seeking re-allotment of shops. That, as a finding is based on the evidence available before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul. That is, a finding, based on evidence, and, this Court can neither interfere with nor examine its correctness or otherwise.

10.Judicial judgments have been passed by the District Munsif Court. Once a judgment had been passed on the basis of analysis of the evidence, this Court will necessarily have to give respect to such judgment. It must also be noted that the petitioners herein, had not chosen to mark the said Memos, during the cross examination of the witness for the defendant. It was marked during the chief examination of the plaintiff witness. Therefore, the memo was never tested or rather put to the witness for the defendant/Corporation. It only remains as a document. To be considered as evidence it will necessarily have to pass through the tests of admissibility, of being proved in manner known to law, and being relevant and also being genuine.

11.There was