COMMON ORDER

Heard Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Xavier Rajini, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2.These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the orders passed in I.A.Nos.449 and 450 of 2015 in O.S.No.447 of 2012 dated 26.06.2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil.

3.The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. The petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.447 of 2012 seeking for a prayer of declaration and for recovery of B schedule property and for mandatory injunction to remove the construction in the B schedule property. The petitioners filed petitions in I.A.Nos.449 and 450 of 2015 seeking permission to amend the plaint and to reopen the case.

https://hcTsehrveice s.etcrouirtsa.glov .in/Chcoseurvricets/ dismissed both the petitions. Against which, the petitioners have come forward with the present revision petitions.

4.On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that the petitioners wanted to amend the survey number of the suit. It is stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner instead of survey no.1179 has mistakenly mentioned survey no.1379. This discrepancies is only with regard to old survey number and the new survey number is the same. It is stated that the some portion of the plaint is to be deleted and 3 to 6 lines are to be inserted regarding the title. It is stated that the amendment will not change the character of the suit and there is no question of limitation and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, this amendment is to be allowed and the case is to be reopened.

5.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the petitioners seek amendment not only in the survey number but also with regard to the title. In the original suit, the first petitioner traced her title stating that the property belonged to her husband who got the property by way of a settlement deed dated 31.01.1963 executed by his grandmother Madi Pillai but now the petitioners wanted to delete this line and want to insert another story stating that the father of the petitioners purchased the property from one Nallakannu through a document number 2109/1109. This amendment will change the entire nature of the case and both the documents settlement deed no.366/1963 and document no.2109/1109 are two different documents and they are not relevant to each other. On the basis of the plaint averments, the respondent has filed written statement and the entire trial was over and the suit was posted for arguments and the petitioner want to delete his earlier statement in the plaint and also in the deposition.

6.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that an amendment can made only before the trial Court and the proposed amendment should not change the nature of the suit. In support of his contention, the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ilayaperumal v. M/s. Madras Cements reported in 2013-5 L.W. 488, wherein it is stated as follows:

“A comparative study of the original written statement and the amendment sought to be made therein would show that the second defendant wants to take totally a contradictory stand and and what he has admitted originally is sought to be denied by way of such amendment. Whether such amendment is permissible is the question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition.

There is no quarrel about the said proposition.

But at the same time, if the inconsistent plea happens to be destructive in nature of the original plea, then such plea cannot be permitted by way of https://hcservices.ecouartms.geonv.idn/mhcesenrvtice s/as held in Gautam Sarup's case.”

7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) v. S.K.Sarwagi & Co., reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 307 (SC), which reads as follows:

“In order to consider whether the appellant/plaintiff has made out a case