Animadverting upon the order dated 03.07.2008 passed by the learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam in I.A.No.1423 of 2007 in O.S.No.24 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A "resume" of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.24 of 2006 for declaration and injunction as against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1423 of 2007 for getting the plaint amended so as to incorporate additionally one other survey number. The trial Court dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would develop his argument that he intended to insert only the Sub Division No.11 in addition to the Sub Division No.10 in Survey No.1297, which was already found mentioned in the plaint, for better description of the suit property and for comprehensive adjudication by the trial Court; however, it was dismissed by the trial Court unjustifiably.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants would submit that neither in the original plaint nor in the document of title, viz., the sale deed which the plaintiff relied on, the survey number 1297/11 is found mentioned; in fact, in I.A.No.1423 of 2007 the petitioner/ plaintiff got his vendor examined as one of the witnesses and to the shock and surprise of the plaintiff himself, his own witness did not support his case; hence the trial Court was justified in dismissing the I.A.No.1423 of 2007.
6. Considering the pro et and contra in this case, what I could see is that the petitioner is not seeking to amend the extent i.e. 3 cents as mentioned in the original plaint or the boundaries, but the plaintiff simply wants to add one other sub division No.1297/11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such an insertion would not in any way change the cause of action and in fact, the defendants also could be given an opportunity of filing additional written statement and adduce evidence.
7. At this juncture, I call up and recollect the trite proposition that the plaintiff is dominus litis and it is for him to put forth his case before the Court and prove it, if at all he wants to achieve success in the litigative battle. Here the plaintiff before the commencement of trial has chosen to file an application so as to insert one other survey number also without in any way seeking amendment relating to boundaries and extent. No doubt his document of title may not be referring to the said number, but that G.RAJASURIA,J itself cannot be taken as a conclusive test. In this case, it is for the plaintiff to establish the title over the said three cents of land and specification of the survey number is only an additional factor and that cannot be treated as the sole evidence. Hence, in these circumstances I am of the considered view that in no way the defendants would be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed. As has been correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court need not have pondered over the matter so deeply at the stage of considering the application for amendment. Hence in these circumstances, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the trial Court is set aside and I.A.No.1423 of 2007 is allowed to the limited extent that the petitioner is allowed to insert additionally S.No.1297/11 in the description of property, whereupon after amending the plaint the defendants shall be given opportunity to file additional written statement and after framing additional issues, the trial Court is bound to proceed with the trial as per law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
gms To The District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam