IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.04.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN
C.R.P. No.1547 of 2008 and M.P. No.1 of 2008
1. S.M.Ganesan
2. Hemavathi
3. Arumugam
4. Venkatesappa
5. Goundamma
6. Kannan
7. Sankaran
8. Srinivasan
9. Krishnan
10.Raja ... Petitioners
Vs
1. K.R.Venkatesulu
2. M.S.Pappiah
3. B.L.Thayyappa ... Respondents
Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Order dt.24.03.2008 passed in I.A.No.216 of 2008 in O.S.No.187 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian
****
O R D E R
This Civil Revision petition is filed against the Order dt.24.03.2008 passed in I.A.No.216 of 2008 in O.S.No.187 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur.
2. The defendants 1 to 10 in O.S.No.187 of 2007 are the revision petitioners before this court. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court by allowing I.A.No.216 of 2008, filed by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs for amendment of plaint, they have filed the above Civil Revision petition.
3. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.187 of 2007 against the revision petitioners and the third respondent herein, for a declaration that the plaintiffs have right, title and possession of the suit schedule property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule property.
4. Written statement was filed by the sixth defendant in the suit, which was adopted by the defendants 1 to 5 and 7 to 10. They have also filed an additional written statement. Pending suit, the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.216 of 2008 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. to permit them to amend the plaint as detailed in the petition. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.216 of 2008, the respondents 1 and 2 herein have stated that they have filed the suit on 7.6.2007 and on that day, the defendants in the suit put up two sheds and on 8.6.2007 they put up two thatched sheds in the suit schedule property. Thus, the defendants trespassed into the suit schedule property illegally and raised the thatched sheds. Hence, a new prayer by way of mandatory injunction is necessary to remove the thatched shed put up by the defendants in the suit. It is further stated in the affidavit that there is an error regarding their vendor’s mother being described as sister, and the same was also to be corrected. Accordingly, they wanted to delete the errors i.e., two daughters in plaint’s page No.2, para 3, line 18 and insert the words “his wife namely Lakshmi Ammal and daughter Maheswari”. This application was resisted by the revision petitioners by filing a counter affidavit. The trial court by order dated 24.03.2008 allowed I.A.No.216 of 2008 and aggrieved by the same, the above revision petition has been filed by the defendants 1 to 10 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and I have also gone through the documents filed in support of his submission.
6. The Civil Revision petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
7. When the respondents 1 and 2 claim that after filing the suit, the defendants in the suit trespassed into the suit schedule property and put up thatched sheds, merits and demerits of the claim need not be gone into at the time of hearing the amendment petition. Admittedly, the suit was filed for a declaration of title and consequential prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession. If that being so, when the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants in the suit trespassed into the suit schedule property pending suit and put up thatched sheds and for that purpose, they wanted to include the prayer of mandatory injunction to remove the thatched sheds, the same has to be allowed to effectively adjudicate the matter. Therefore, in my considered view, the trial court has correctly adverted to the facts and law and allowed the amendment petition as prayed for. Further, it is always open to the revision petitioners to agitate the matter on merits by filing additional written statement, if any, after the amendment is carried out.
8. Therefore, I find no merits in the above revision petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
9. It is also made clear that the observations made by the trial court while allowing the amendment petition shall not be held against the revision petitioners at the time of disposing of the suit and the suit has to be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law without getting influenced by the observations made by the trial court in the order dated 24.03.2008 allowing the amendment petition.
22.04.2008
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vaan
To
The District Munsif, Hosur.
S.RAJESWARAN, J
vaan
C.R.P. No.1547 of 2008
and M.P. No.1 of 2008
Dated: 22.04.2008