Amendments to pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure are permissible if they do not prejudice the opposing party's rights, and courts should allow necessary modifications to ensure justice.

ORDER :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Fair and Final Order dated March 29, 2023 passed by the ‘Principal Subordinate Court, Erode' ['Trial Court' for convenience] in the Interlocutory Application filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the 'Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short], in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No.177 of 2016, the fourth respondent therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2.The Revision Petitioner herein is the Fourth Defendant;Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs; and Respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein are the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the Original Suit in O.S.No.177 of 2016 on the file of the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3.The Suit Schedule Properties consist of Schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' properties. The Plaintiffs filed a Suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession in respect of Suit 'B' Schedule Property; declaration of title in respect of Suit 'C' Schedule Property and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of Suit 'C' Schedule Property not to interfere with the Plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. According to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs came to know about the encroachment made by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Suit 'B' Schedule Property only in the year 2016.Hence, the Suit was filed in 2016.

3.1.The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement. Thereafter, the Fourth Defendant (Revision Petitioner herein) was impleaded themselves as parties to the Suit vide Order dated July 29, 2019 made in I.A. No.880 of 2016.

3.2.When the case was posted for trial, the Plaintiffs filed an Interlocutory Application under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC in I.A.No.4 of 2016 seeking amendment of the plaint. The said Interlocutory Application was allowed by the Trial Court.

3.3.Feeling aggrieved, the Revision Petitioner / Fourth Defendant therein has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

4.Heard the submissions made by Ms.D.Jeevitha, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner; Dr.C.Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Mr.M.Rajamathivanan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3.

5.Ms.D.Jeevitha, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner / Fourth Defendant submits that the amendment sought for by the Plaintiffs is barred by limitation. The Plaintiffs knew about the existence of building in the Suit 'B' Schedule Property at the time of filing of the Suit itself. Further, drainage construction in the Suit ‘C’ Schedule Property has been in existence for more than twenty years. Under these circumstances, the Plaintiffs filed an Interlocutory Application seeking amendment of the plaint to include relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the construction in the Suit 'B' and 'C' Schedule Properties after a lapse of three years, which is barred by limitation. The Trial Court, without considering this material fact, erred in allowing the Interlocutory Application filed for amendment. Moreover, amendment of plaint sought after commencement of trial is impermissible. Accordingly, she prays to allow this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the Order of the Trial Court and dismiss the Interlocutory Application.

5.1.In support of her submission, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner / Fourth Defendant would rely on the following judgments:

(i)Judgment of this Court in Ferani Hotels Private Ltd., -vs- K.Raheja Development Corporation (KRDC), reported in 2014 (2) CTC 655 and

(ii)Judgment of this Court in Chinnu Padayachi -vs- Dhanalakshmi , reported in 2011 (6) CTC 477

6.Per contra, Dr.C.Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 / Plaintiffs contends that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 encroached upon the Suit 'B' Schedule Property and put up construction. The Plaintiffs came to know about the exis