ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

14.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.238 of 2017 in O.S.No.156 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The first revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the original suit and the petitioner in the I.A Petition. The respondents herein are the defendants in the original suit and the respondents in the I.A. Petition.

3.The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.156 of 2012 for mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction. In the suit, the petitioner filed a petition in I.A.No.238 of 2017, under Order 6 Rule 17 and 151 C.P.C., for permission to carry out amendments in the plaint. That petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Against which, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition.

4.Brief substance of the petition in I.A.No.238 of 2017, is as follows:-

The suit was filed to remove the windows and sunshades constructed by the first respondent, to remove the wall constructed by the third respondent and for permanent injunction. The suit property belonged to the petitioner and he constructed a house and is residing in the house and the western side of the house is a vacant site in Survey No.TS 1108. In that vacant site, the first respondent has encroached and has constructed windows and sunshades. The first respondent is claiming the suit property as if it is situated in T.S.No.1109/13 and claiming the same as his own land and an issue has to be framed whether the land belong to the petitioner or the first respondent. The vacant site was left for the own use of the plaintiff, but, in the plaint the lane was wrongly mentioned as a common lane, which is against the case of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property is to be altered, so, as to specifically mentioned the individual encroachments, hence, the plaint has to be amended.

5.Brief substance of the counter in I.A.No.238 of 2017, is as follows:-

The main issue in the case is regarding a lane between the petitioner and the respondents' property. In the plaint, the petitioner claimed the lane as a common lane, now, to withdraw the admissions made in the plaint, the petitioner is trying to amend the plaint and is trying to introduce the lane as his own lane. The respondent filed the written statement on 09.07.2010. But, the plaintiff did not take any action to amend the plaint for the past five years. Only when trial is about to commence, the plaintiff has come forward with a petition for amendment. Only to harass the 82 years old first defendant, the plaintiff has filed this petition and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

6.After hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the petition.

Against the same, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision on the following grounds:-

The amendment petition was dismissed only on the ground of delay. The title of the plaintiff in T.S.No.1108/10 is specifically denied by the defendants and hence, the prayer has to be amended. The amendment was completely based on the plan and report of the Commissioner. The trial Court failed to consider that the proposed amendment in the description of the suit scheduled property will not change the nature and character of the suit. Even post trial amendment can be allowed under Section 153 of C.P.C, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the suit has to be amended. The petitioner came to know about the situation only after the filing of the Commissioner report and the delay can be compensated by way of cost. Instead of filing another suit, the petitioner may be permitted to amend the plaint.

7.On the side of the revision respondent, it is stated that the amendment proposed by the petitioner will completely change the nature of the suit. The entire schedule of property will be changed and new properties will be introduced in the schedule of property. There is a delay of five years in filing the petition. The ownership of the lane is in dispute, the original claim of th