Court affirmed that amendments can be allowed liberally, considering ongoing developments in a case and applicable exclusions from limitation due to exceptional circumstances.

ORDER :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Principal District Munsif’s Court, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.1891 of 2022 in O.S.No.106 of 2019, dated 18.02.2023 allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. Originally, the respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and other defendant from altering the physical features in the suit property. Now, the instant application has been filed by the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint to include prayer for mandatory injunction on the ground that the defendants had put up construction in the suit property pending suit. The said amendment application was allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/3^rd defendant has come before this Court.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the Advocate Commissioner's report filed before the Trial Court on 13.08.2019, there were construction activities in the suit property even on 08.08.2019 and therefore, the instant application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 seeking inclusion of prayer for mandatory injunction on 15.12.2022 beyond the period of 3 years and therefore, the same is barred by limitation. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner as well as respondents purchased the suit property pending O.S.No.543 of 2003. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, the title of the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs was seriously disputed and therefore, the prayer for mandatory injunction sought to be introduced by the respondents 1 to 4 without prayer for declaration of title is not at all maintainable. In support of her contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:-

(i) Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Through LRS vs. S.K.Sarvagi and Company Private Limited and Another reported in (2008) 14 SCC 364

(ii) P.Subba Naicker vs. Veluchamy Naicker and three others reported in 2004 (2) CTC 742

(iii) Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and Others vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 565

(iv) Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B.Gunashekar and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 793

4. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 by relying on the judgment of Apex Court in M/s.Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs. M/s.Aptech Ltd. /b> reported in 2024 INSC 155 submitted that if the Covid period is excluded, the prayer for mandatory injunction is very well within limitation. He also submitted that at the time of considering the amendment application, Court cannot go to the merits of the suit.

5. In M/s.Arif Azim Co. Ltd., case cited supra while explaining the exclusion of Covid period while computing limitation, the Apex Court observed as follows:-

“82. … … … … Taking cognisance of this unfortunate turn of events, this Court vide order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Motu Civil Writ Petition No. 03/2020 directed the period commencing from 15.03.2020 to be excluded for the purposes of computation of limitation. The said extension of limitation was extended from time to time by this Court in view of the continuing pandemic. As a result, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was finally determined to be excluded for the computation of limitation. It was provided that the balance period of limitation as available on 15.03.2020 would b