The court emphasized that amendments to pleadings should be permitted if they clarify existing claims without altering the cause of action.

ORDER

Heard Mr.T.S.Baskaran for the petitioner and Mr.Rooban Chakravarthy for the respondent.

2. The civil revision petitioner challenges the order of the learned Principal District Munsif at Cuddalore in I.A.No.129 of 2021 in O.S.No.123 of 2016 dated 12.01.2022.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

4. The plaintiff is the civil revision petitioner. He presented O.S.No.123 of 2016 seeking declaration of his title to the B schedule mentioned property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

5. The case, according to the plaint, is that the plaintiff's father, one Ramasamy Reddiar, purchased the A schedule mentioned property by way of two registered sale deeds dated 22.06.1949 and 09.11.1957. The said Ramasammy Reddiar was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, till he passed away on 10.01.1966. On the death of Ramasamy Reddiar, the plaintiff succeeded to the property as his sole legal heir.

6. The cause of action for the suit is that the defendant, who is the neighbour of the plaintiff, attempted to encroach upon the B schedule mentioned property, which is a smaller extent of the A schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant is attempting to take forceable possession on that portion and hence, he came forward with the suit.

7. The summons were duly served on the defendant and the defendant also filed a detailed written statement.

8. The defendant, in his written statement, stated that he had purchased the property adjacent to the plaintiff's property in the year 2011. He pleaded that the suit lacks the cause of action because the defendant had never attempted to encroach upon the property. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

9. The parties went for trial, on the basis of these pleadings. The trial was completed and the suit was posted for arguments.

10. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the plaint. The plaintiff described the plaint portion as item Nos.1 to 7, and pointed out the portions marked as 1, 2, 3 and 7 were purchased in the year 1949, and items marked as 4 to 6 were purchased in the year 1957. He also sought to include the details as regards the vendors and purchasers in the sale deeds. He further added that since there is a difference in measurement of the property, he has come forth with the details by amending the schedule. He added a line stating that the defendant, without knowing the actual East-West measurement of the plaintiff's property and assuming that the East-West extent is a straight line, is attempting to trespass into the B schedule property. Furthermore, the plaintiff in the amendment application gave the details of the A and B schedule property and described them in terms of a rough plan produced along with the plaint.

11. The learned Trial Judge received this application as I.A.No.129 of 2021 and directed the defendant to file a counter.

12. A counter was presented stating that there is no need to amend the plaint and it was an attempt by the plaintiff to introduce a new cause of action. He pointed out further that if the amendment is carried out, the relief in the plaint must be changed into one for recovery of possession and such a relief cannot be granted. He further urged that it is unbelievable that the plaintiff came to know about the mistakes in the schedule only at the time of preparation of the arguments, and the schedule of the property has cunningly been drafted to suit the plaintiff's convenience. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the application.

13. The learned Trial