This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 29.8.2008 in CMA.No.80/2006 passed by the learned III Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, confirming the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town in IA.No.334/2006 in OS.No.761/2005 dated 9.10.2006.
2. The petitioner has filed the above said suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties in S.No.811/2 measuring an extent of 1121 sq.ft out of which the Sales Bunk measures about 64 sq.ft and a tea stall measures about 64 sq.ft and the remaining vacant site is measuring of an extent of 993 sq.ft. Pending the suit, the learned Principal District Munsif has granted an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in IA.No.510/2005.
3. It is stated by the petitioner that the 1st respondent had demolished a portion of the building put up by the petitioner in the suit property on 20.5.2005 at 11.30 a.m. and damaged the movables worth of Rs.50,000/- and further detained the petitioner and his family members illegally in their custody on the said date. In order to put on record the above said subsequent events the petitioner has filed a petition in IA.No.334/2006 to amend the plaint in order to incorporate the subsequent events in the plaint.
4. The said petition has been resisted by the 1st respondent by filing a counter contending that except the area of 64 sq.ft that was leased out to the 2nd respondent Corporation which has been sub leased to the petitioner to run TANTEA Sales Bunk, the remaining area of 1037 sq.ft belongs to the Government owned by the Tamil Nadu Forest Department and has not been given lease to anyone.
5. According to the 1st respondent, on 20.5.2005, the petitioner broke open the seal affixed by the Forest Department and started running a retail shop and as per the orders of the 1st respondent herein, the temporary structure put up by the petitioner in the Government land was removed without causing any damage to the property of the petitioner. They have further stated that the petitioner had filed a writ petition in WP.No.4562/2005 and WPMP.No.4860/2006, claiming compensation for the alleged loss and the same has been suppressed in the petition.
6. The courts below have dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has filed a separate suit for damages in the Sub Court and hence, there is no necessity to bring forth the subsequent events by way of an amendment in the present suit. The lower appellate court has further held that amending the plaint with the subsequent event will not help the court to decide the main suit and thus declined to allow the amendment. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
7. Mr.K.Gnanasambandan, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the courts below have gone into the correctness of the amendment and failed to consider that the introduction of subsequent events by way of an amendment will not change the nature of the case or the cause of action. According to him, without the said amendment the above said suit cannot be adjudicated as the specific plea of the petitioner is that the respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioner of the suit schedule properties, which stood substantiated in view of the subsequent events. He would place reliance on the decision of this court rendered in the case of S.Chellathurai Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar and another [2007-4-CTC-128] in support of his contention that the court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the amendment and should not record findings on merits of amendment.
8. It is true that the court at this stage is not concerned with the merits and demerits of the case resulting from allowing an amendment unless the amendment is shown to be barred under some law or is an amendment which is not permissible on the basis of the settled cannons of the civil jurisprudence. The amendment should be considered without reference to the ultimate fate of the result of the suit. In the instant case, the petitioner has already filed a suit for permanent injunction and in the said suit prayed for amendment for introduction of the subsequent events said to have occurred on 20.5.2005 during the pendency of the suit, whereby the respondents are said to have demolished the structures put up by the petitioner and therefore, he wishes to bring forth the subsequent events in the suit for better adjudication.
9. The effect of allowing the amendment in this case will not certainly change the nature of the case or the subject matter. The petitioner is not building up a new case which he has not pleaded at the first instance except the inclusion of subsequent events which had occurred during the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents has nowhere showed that the relief claimed by the petitioner is barred or hit by legal provisions or settled principles governing the subject.
10. In the case of Shikhrchand Jain Vs. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and others [AIR-1974-SC-1178], the Honourable Supreme Court has held thus:-
"Ordinarily a suit is tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed on the date of its institution. But it is open to a Court (including a court of appeal) to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has (1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation or (3) to do complete justice between the parties."
11. In an another case in Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Ranbir B.Goyal [AIR- 2002-SC-665], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the subsequent events founded on facts and when the party relies on it must seek amendment of the pleadings. It is further held thus:-
"The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (1) that the relief as claimed originally has by reason of subsequent events become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (2) that taking note of such subsequent events or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; (3) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise."
12. From the above, it is clear that the law is well settled that the court may permit the plaintiff to introduce those subsequent events into the pleadings by way of an amendment, as it would be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question and controversy between the parties. The decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found; and without the amendment of the pleadings, the court would not be entitled to modify or alter the relief.
13. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that the apprehension of the learned counsel for the respondents is that as the petitioner has already filed another suit for damages based on the subsequent events, no cause of action survives in the suit and even the present amendment will not cure the said defect and consequently allowing of the application for amendment would prejudicially affect the interest of the respondents, in my view, is not well founded. The petitioner is still in possession of a portion of the property and the consequences of subsequent events if proved bound to be considered by the trial court in order to enable the court to do complete justice to the parties.
13. For the reasons stated supra, the orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside and accordingly, they are set aside and this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
Srcm To:
1.The III Additional Sub Judge, Madurai
2.The Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town