The trial court primarily determined that contradictory assertions in pleadings invalidated the allowability of amendments to the plaint.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 01.09.2025 passed in OS No.335/2002 by which an application filed by him for amendment of the plaint to insert additional pleadings was rejected.

2. The suit in OS No.335/2002 was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the encroachment on the western side in an area measuring North-South 12 feet and East-West 40 feet. The suit was decreed in part on 03.10.2007 enabling the plaintiff to receive the value of the encroachment portion. The plaintiff No.2 who had purchased the property challenged the Judgment in RA No.122/2007 which was allowed on 25.03.2008 and the case was remitted for reconsideration reserving liberty to the parties to amend the pleadings. Later, the plaint was amended and the daughter of the defended was impleaded as defendant No.2 as she has encroached the suit property on the northern side. The order impleading the defendant No.2 was challenged by the defendant No.1 in WP No.31686/2008 which was dismissed in terms of the order dated 18.12.2008. Later, the defendant No.2 was also challenged the said order in WP No.60323/2009. This Court noticed that the application filed by the plaintiffs was not only impleading but also amendment of the pleading which was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs sought permission to file separate applications therefore, the Writ Petition was allowed and the order dated 27.11.2008 was quashed. The application filed for impleading was dismissed as withdrawn but, liberty was reserved for filing separate applications for impleading and amendment of the pleading.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution in terms of an order dated 16.06.2014. Later Misc. No.14/2014 was filed for restoration of the suit which was allowed on 31.07.2024.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.3 noticed that the defendant No.2 had encroached the suit property on the northern side and had put up illegal construction. He therefore, filed IA No.20 requesting the trial Court to permit him to amend the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings in the plaint to justify the encroachment by the defendant No.2. The application was contested by defendant No.2.

5. The trial Court after considering the application and the objections there to, rejected it in terms of the order dated 01.09.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff No.3 is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff No.3 submits that the trial Court committed an error in not noticing that defendant No.2 was already impleaded as the legal heir of the defendant No.1. He contends that the plaintiffs had sought for declaration of title in respect of the entire property and therefore, were bound to implead all persons who were in unauthorized occupation of the suit property. He contends that the encroachment by the defendant No.2 over the northern side was during the pendency of the suit and hence, an amendment application to incorporate additional pleadings ought to have been permitted. He contends that allowing these additional pleadings to be brought on record did not change the nature of the suit and defendant No.2 did not suffer any hardship or difficulty and she would be entitle to file her additional statement. He contends that the trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the application was belated. He submits that the trial Court could have given effect to the amendment from the date of the application which would have met the ends of justice.

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for plaintiff No.3.

8. The suit was filed in the year 2002 and the suit w