The petitioner / plaintiff has laid the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction. The said suit has been resisted the respondents / defendants on various grounds. As seen from the materials placed, it is found that the suit had been listed for arguments from 2015 onwards and the petitioner / plaintiff has been dragging on the matter by filing one application after the other and it is found that the Court below had shown indulgence to the petitioner / plaintiff and entertained the various applications laid by him and accordingly, the parties have been recalled and the plaint had been amended etc. It is further, found that after all these proceedings, again, when the matter had been listed for arguments, it is found that petitioner / plaintiff has come forward with an application, in I.A.No.210 of 2017, seeking for the amendment of the plaint for the relief of mandatory injunction contending that the respondents / defendants have altered certain structures in the property concerned and therefore, the same had necessitated him to come forward with the application to amend the plaint for the appropriate reliefs. The said application was resisted by the respondents / defendants contending that this is another type of ploy on the part of the petitioner / plaintiff to delay the proceedings and when the petitioner / plaintiff has not come out clearly as to on what date the so-called alteration has been effected by the respondents / defendants and further, when the petitioner / plaintiff has also not clearly put forth any objections to the report of the Commissioner with reference to the same and accordingly, contended that the application is liable to be rejected.
2. The Court below, on a consideration of the various factors, finding that the petitioner / plaintiff has been all along procrastinating the matter by filing applications one after the other and further finding that when the matter has come to the last stage i.e., arguments stage, inasmuch as the petitioner / plaintiff has not come forward with a specific version i.e., on what date the alleged alteration has been made by the respondents / defendants, finding that this is another type of ploy on the part of the petitioner / plaintiff to delay the matter, dismissed the application.
3. Considering the impugned order of the Court below and also the different types of delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner / plaintiff, in my considered opinion, I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of the Court below and the same does not call for any interference from this Court.
4. Resultanly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Principal District Munsif, Manapparai, Trichi District.
.