ORDER

O.S.No.84 of 2006 was presented before the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur. In paragraph No.5 of the plaint, the purpose for which the suit has been presented has been stated as one for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 17.08.2005. However, the prayer that was sought for in the suit was for recovery of possession. The prayer in the suit does not fit within the frame of the suit. In the meanwhile, the suit was proceeded with.

2.Sometime after filing of the reply statement, the plaintiff realized that instead of seeking the relief of specific performance, he had sought for recovery of possession. A prayer for recovery of possession is consequent to the suit for specific performance and it is not vice versa. Therefore, he took out an application in I.A.No.999 of 2018 for amendment of the prayer. The said application was dismissed as it was stiffly opposed by the respondent herein. Against the said order, the present revision has been presented.

3.Heard Mr.Ramaraj, learned counsel for Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Sri Ram Narayanan, learned counsel for the respondents. I have care