The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 21.02.2017, passed in I.A.No.203 of 2015 in O.S.No.276 of 2013, on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti.
2. The revision petitioner / plaintiff has laid the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction sought for by the petitioner / plaintiff seem to be claimed only in his individual capacity. The respondents / defendants have filed their written statement and contesting the suit laid by the petitioner / plaintiff. While so, it is found that the petitioner / plaintiff has preferred the above said application seeking to amend the plaint and by way of the proposed amendment, the petitioner / plaintiff sought for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents / defendants not to disturb his possession in respect of the subject matter of the suit property in his capacity as the Trustee of Srinivasa Perumal Temple. The said application was resisted by the respondents / defendants contending that the petitioner / plaintiff, by way of the proposed amendment, is seeking to assume the role of the Trustee of the Temple above mentioned without getting himself duly appointed as the Trustee of the said Temple in the manner known to law and the petitioner / plaintiff's entitlement to seek the status of the Trustee of the said Temple could be obtained only on he moving necessary application before the appropriate authority as provided under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and therefore, under the guise of the proposed amendment, the petitioner / plaintiff is attempting to usurp the role of the Trustee of the Temple concerned and hence, the proposed amendment would only introduce a new cause of action and new set of facts completely alien to the facts already set out in the plaint and hence, the application preferred by the petitioner / plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
3. The Court below accepting the contentions of the respondents / defendants, dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner / plaintiff. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
4. The proposed amendment is not a simple amendment as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff. As already adverted to, the petitioner / plaintiff sought for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction only in his individual capacity. The said claim of the petitioner / plaintiff itself is being disputed by the respondents / defendants. By way of the proposed amendment, the petitioner / plaintiff seeks the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents / defendants not to disturb his possession in his capacity as the Trustee of Srinivasa Perumal Temple and as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants, when the petitioner / plaintiff has not established his status as the Trustee or the fact that he has been duly appointed as the Trustee of the above said Temple by the appropriate Authority in the manner known to law, the petitioner / plaintiff, under the guise of the proposed amendment, is attempting to usurp the role of the Trustee of the Temple concerned and in such view of the matter, it is seen that the proposed amendment cannot be entertained as the same would completely alter the cause of action as well as change the character of the suit and it is, thus, found that the Court below has rightly discountenanced the amendment application preferred by the petitioner / plaintiff.
5. In the light of the above discussions, as the proposed amendment does not fall in line with the averments already set out in the plaint and on the other hand, the petitioner / plaintiff proposed to introduce a new set of facts and thereby alter the character of the suit completely and under the proposed amendment, the petitioner / plaintiff wants to usurp the role of the Trustee, without being duly appointed as the Trustee of the said Temple in the manner known to law, it is found that the Court below has rightly declined the request of the petitioner / plaintiff to amend the plaint and in such view of the matter, the impugned order of the Court below does not call for any interference from this Court.
6. Resultanty, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The District Munsif, Kovilpatti.
.