Anim-adverting upon the order dated 21.11.2007 passed in I.A.No.975 of 2007 in O.S.No.60 of 1999 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, this revision petition is filed.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition, as stood exposited from the plaint, succinctly and precisely, pithily and briefly be set out thus:
The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.60 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur. Whereupon the trial started and the petitioner/plaintiff adduced evidence. At that stage, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.975 of 2007 under Order 6 Rule 17, seeking amendment of the plaint as under:-
2) in prayer column the relief (a) and (b) have to be deleted put the following in its place and amend the relief (c) as (b) and (d) as (c).
a) decree of declaration declaring the plaintiffs absolute title over the suit lane and consequently for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or anyone on their behalf from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lane.
3) In description of property the words - ,e;j jhtht[f;Fcl;gl;lJ after "1134 > rJuofs; bfhz;l mokiz epyk; g{uht[k; has to be deleted. In the 5th line of the same description of property add fpiuak; K:yk; ghjpjpag;gl;lJ/ After tpy;iytPL xd;W also add re;jpd; bkhj;j tp!;jPuzk; 35 rJuo epyk; mjd; kjpg;g[ U:/490-= jhd;/ after the word re;J and delete all other words after the jhth brhj;J/ However, the respondents/defendants objected to it. Whereupon the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order, this revision petition has been focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument that the amendment sought is not for changing the entire cause of action or for replacing the existing suit property with that of a new property. In fact, the earlier prayer in the plaint was not property worded, even though, the actual requirement for declaration was only relating to the lane and not for the entire property, which included the house property of the petitioner/plaintiff. The lower Court, without adverting to the salient features involved in the proposed amendment, simply dismissed it.
4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would put across her point that the nature of the amendment is so confusing and unclear and that if allowed to be carried out in the plaint, it would have the effect of changing the entire cause of action as well as the suit property; by the proposed amendment, the petitioner/plaintiff is seeking to give a go-bye to the earlier description of the suit lane as 2 1/2 feet in width on the Southern side and after 26th feet ending by one foot width; now the petitioner/plaintiff seeks to give a go-bye to the description and replace the same with the description as though the suit lane was 35 sq.feet; there is no clarity at all in that description. If the proposed amendment is allowed, no one will be able to understand as to where actually the lane situates and what is its length and breadth; the petitioner/plaintiff also is trying to bring in some words relating to sale deed, which also is not permissible in the description of suit property. Accordingly, she prays for the dismissal of the revision petition.
5. Considering the pro et contra, it is clear that the amendment sought for is in the nature of changing the very description of the suit property. It is not as though the petitioner/plaintiff wants to delete the prayer for declaration relating to the house and restrict his prayer only to the lane. But the nature of the amendment is such that the description of lane itself is sought to be replaced. The earlier description of the lane is set out here under:-
@nkw;go brf;Fge;jpf;Fs; nkw;go 1 tJ jhf;if nrh;e;jhh;nghy; bjd;fpHf;F K:iyapy; 2 tJ jhf;F fpHnky; ,Ug[wKk; 13 mo. bjd;tly; ,Ug[wKk; 23 mo. 3 1-4 mo. ,e;jst[s;s 42 1-4 rJuofs; bfhz;l mokizepyk; Mf ,uz;Ljhf;FfSk; nrh;e;J bkhj;jk; 1134=3-4 rJuofs; bfhz;l mokizepyk; g{uht[k; ,e;jjhthtpw;F cl;gl;lJ/ kw;Wk; c& kidepyj;jpy; fl;lg;gl;Ls;s tpy;iytPL xd;Wk; c& tPl;od; bjd;g[wk; 2 1-2 mo. Mfyj;jpy; Muk;gpj;J nky;g[wk; 1 mo mfyj;jpy; cslsJkhd mst[s;s fPHnky; 26 mo. Epw re;Jk; mr;re;jpy; re;jpy; gpujpthjpf;F tH';fg;gl;l ghij jtpu thjpf;F cz;lhd midj;J ghj;jpa';fSk; ghj;jpag;gl;lJ/@ now the petitioner/plaintiff wants to get that aforesaid description deleted from the schedule of property and replace it with the following description:
". . . . . After tpy;iytPL xd;W also add re;jpd; bkhj;j tp!;jPuzk; 35 rJuo epyk; mjd; kjpg;g[ U:/490-= jhd;/ after the word re;J and delete all other words after the jhth brhj;J/ Furthermore, the alleged new description of the suit lane as 35 sq.feet does not tally with the earlier description and as per the earlier description, the area of the lane would come to 45.5 sq.feet. How the said 35 sq.feet of area has been arrived at, is not found detailed. All along the respondents/defendants contested the case only keeping in mind the schedule of property as found set out in the plaint. Now if the schedule is changed in the manner sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff, certainly in this case, the defence of the defendants would be prejudiced. The trial Court, taking into account the delay aspect, dismissed the I.A. However, this Court, after hearing both sides and the perusal of the records, finds that there is no merit in the amendment sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, in these circumstance, no interference with the order of the lower Court is warranted. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.