The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of the gold jewels or the value equivalent thereof to the tune of Rs.3,68,600/-. It is found that the suit has been laid in the year 2008. It is seen that subsequently, the plaintiff had died and his legal heirs have been brought on record. It is further seen that thereafter, the petitioners / plaintiffs have moved an application seeking for re-fixation of the value of the gold jewels, the recovery of which is sought for, on the footing that the value of the gold jewels had increased and thus, the present value of the gold jewels should be incorporated in the plaint and accordingly, sought for necessary amendment.
2. The said application was resisted by the respondents / defendants contending that by way of the amendment application, the petitioners / plaintiffs are introducing a new cause of action and when the suit had been filed by fixing the value of the gold jewels, for which the recovery is sought for, the petitioners / plaintiffs cannot seek for amendment of the plaint on the footing that the value has been subsequently increased, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the said application.
3. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, finding that the cause of action arose only on the date of plaint and the value of the gold jewels is not constant and increasing day-by-day and if this type of amendment applications are entertained, there would be no end or quietus to the issues and accordingly, dismissed the application. In such view of the matter, I find acceptance to the reasons given by the Court below for dismissing the application and the impugned order of the Court below, therefore, does not call for any interference from this Court.
4. Resultanlty, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram.
.