Under challenge is Ext.P6 order passed by the court below in I.A.No.941/2012 in O.S.No.115/2007 which is an application for amendment of the schedule of the plaint pointing out that in the light of Commissioner's report that he was unable to identify the property. The petition for amendment was opposed by the respondents and the court below by the impugned order namely, Ext.P6 dismissed the application. Later on, the plaintiff filed an application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. That was also dismissed resulting the petitioner-plaintiff left with no remedy to get his property identified. 2. Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the petitioner is only concerned with Ext.P6 order. It is only to help the Commissioner to identify the property that the amendment was sought for and also for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. It is not a
O.P.(C) No.1515/2013 2
question of the plaintiff seeking for amendment unable to state the boundaries.
3. The respondents opposed the petition pointing out that the plaintiff does not know where his property is located and what are the boundaries. He cannot take a stand that the Commissioner should identify the property. On those grounds, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Even though the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents may appear to be attractive at the first blush, it can be seen that it is without any merits at all. The petitioner in true spirit had sought for issuance of a commission to identify the property and he has taken all steps in that regard. He also sought the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor. The Commissioner, after inspection of the property, expressed his difficulty to identify the property and it was under that context that amendment was sought for. The lower court does not find from the nature of the amendment sought for that either the extent of property is sought to be enlarged or any property is being substituted and that there is any change in the cause of
O.P.(C) No.1515/2013 3
action. Since there is no prejudice caused to the respondents, the court below ought to have allowed the amendment application.
For the above reasons, this Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order is set aside and the amendment application shall stand allowed. The defendants will be allowed to file additional written statement if they so choose. The trial court may make every endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of carrying out the amendment.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp