Inveighing the order dated 02.09.2005, passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajapet, Vellore District in I.A.No.311 of 2004 in O.S.No.218 of 1998, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Both sides called absent.
3. A 'resume' of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:
The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.218 of 1998 for permanent injunction as against the defendants in respect of the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.311 of 2004 seeking to get the plaint amended. After hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the said I.A. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, this Court revision petition has been filed on various grounds inter alia thus:
The lower Court erred in assuming that without exhausting the remedy contemplated before the revenue authorities, the amendment would not lie.
4. A bare perusal of the typed set of papers including the order of the lower Court would demonstrate and indicate that the revision petitioner filed the suit for injunction relating to the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, in view of the contentions raised on the side of the defendants, the plaintiff thought it fit to seek declaration of his title to the suit property along with the prayer for injunction, which is already found incorporated in the plaint. The contention on the side of the Government Officials (R5 to R7) before the trial Court was to the effect that the suit property is a poromboke land and belongs to Government land and hence the plaintiff cannot claim any title to it.
5. Ex facie and prima facie it is glaringly and pellucidly, plainly and palpably clear that the lower Court owning the misconception of law, simply dismissed the I.A. on the main ground that the plaintiff without exhausting his remedy before the revenue authorities should not have sought for adding such prayer in the plaint.
6. At this juncture, my mind is redolent and reminiscent of the following decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1998(1) CTC 630 [Srinivasan and six others vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, Pattaviathalai, Tiruchirapally District by its Executive Officer at Pettavaithalai Devasthanam and five others].
G.RAJASURIA, J.
gms It is therefore obvious and apparent, plain and manifest that the lower Court was wrong in dismissing the application. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case. Simply by allowing the I.A. for amendment to include the prayer for declaration of his title over the suit property, no presumption would arise that the Court would accept his title towards the suit property. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is just and necessary to allow the said I.A. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.09.2005 passed by the lower Court is set aside by allowing this civil revision petition. Consequently, the I.A.No.311 of 2004 shall stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.02.2009 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajapet, Vellore District.
C.R.P.(PD)No.50 of 2006