This Civil Revision Petition is focussed as against the order in I.A.NO.400 of 2005 in O.S.No.35 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif, Nilakottai, dated 06.03.2006.
2. A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
The petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2001 for bare injunction as against the respondents herein. It so happened that after the filing of the said suit, the defendants filed a fresh suit in O.S.No.145 of 2001 for declaration of title relating to the same suit property and for recovery of possession.
3. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.400 of 2005 in O.S.No.35 of 2001 for getting the plaint mainly amended so as to incorporate the prayer for declaration of title, as earlier, the plaint is bereft of such a prayer. However, the trial Court dismissed that I.A for amendment.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such an order, this Civil Revision Petition is focussed on the main ground that the trial Court instead of allowing that application, simply dismissed it on the ground that by way of counter claim, the plaintiff could file necessary statement in O.S.No.145 of 2001 itself.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court?
6. Heard both sides.
7. The petitioner herein filed the earlier suit in O.S.No.35 of 2001 for bare injunction so as to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Whereas during the pendency of that suit, the defendants filed a separate suit in O.S.No.l45 of 2001 seeking declaration of title over the suit property and for recovery of possession.
8. Both suits are interlinked. On the one hand, the revision petitioner would claim ownership and wants to retain the property over which she claims to be in possession. On the other hand, the defendants want that their title to be declared and want recovery of possession from the petitioner. The suit property is one and the same.
9. It is one thing that the revision petitioner could file counter claim in O.S.No.145 of 2001, which is only the subsequently instituted suit. If the same logic is applied, the respondents could have filed the counter claim in O.S.No.35 of 2001 at the earliest point of time itself. As such, each party has chosen its own method of litigation before the trial Court.
10. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am of the considered opinion that mere adding a prayer for declaration of title of the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.35 of 2001 in no way would prejudice the other side. Any how, the trial Court is expected to conduct joint trial of both the cases.
11. In fact, the suit for bare injunction is not tenable in view of the decision in Chinna Nachiappan and another v. PL.Lakshmanan reported in 2007(4) CTC 70.
12. In view of the above dictum, the petitioner's approach in getting the plaint could be upheld and the trial Court is directed to dispose of both the cases within a period of four months.
13. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
rsb To The District Munsif, Nilakottai.