The application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint and to incorporate the plea of declaration and possession was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that no amendment could be permitted after framing issues.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents.
3. The petitioner initially filed a suit for demarcation. In the written statement filed by the respondents as defendants, a contention was taken disputing the title and possession. It was only under such circumstances, the petitioner filed the application for amendment.
4. It is true that the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application was not happily worded. However, the fact remains that there was a challenge to the title and possession claimed by the petitioner in the plaint filed in O.S.No.188 of 2003. Such being the factual position, the petitioner was justified in taking up a plea before the Trial Court on the basis of his title and possession. Since the background facts was not considered by the learned Trial Judge, while dismissing the application for amendment, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. In the result, the impugned order dated 29 September, 2009, is set aside.
6. In the upshot, I allow the Civil Revision Petition. It is needless to mention that reasonable opportunity should be given to the respondents to file additional written statement, taking into account the amendment made to the plaint, at the instance of the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To The Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram.
.