Inveighing the order dated dated 7.8.2008 passed in I.A.No.2746 of 2007 in O.S.No.51 of 1997 by the I Additional District Munsif, Vridhachalam, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. A summation and summarisation of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition, would run thus:-
The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration and injunction with regard to the suit immovable property making the following prayer:-
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED The defendants/revision petitioners entered appearance and filed the written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants filed I.A.No.2746 of 2007 seeking permission of the Court to get the written statement amended. Whereupon the lower Court dismissed the said application. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the said order this revision is focussed by the defendants on various grounds inter alia that the lower Court wrongly held that inasmuch as the matter was taken up for trial, no amendment could be allowed and the reasons given by the lower Court for dismissal are unsound.
3. Mr.Ram Prabhu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would pray for adjournment on the ground that not even the typed set of papers have been served. However, on perusal of records, I am of the opinion that this is a matter, which shall be remitted back to the lower Court and hence no adjournment is required.
4. A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court would ex facie and prima facie make the point pellucidly and palpably clear that it is far from satisfactory. The lower Court felt that in the I.A.No.2746 of 2007 no indication has been given as to what are all the proposed amendments to be effected, in the earlier written statement.
5. I would like to point out that the mistake was committed by the office as well as the lower Court Judge in entertaining the said application. On seeing that the application for amendment is bereft of the proposed amendments, the lower Court should have returned the application itself for compliance or the lower Court Judge, after erroneously taking the I.A on file and after coming to know the apparent error in the petition, should have directed the party to take steps to furnish the relevant proposed amendments but surprisingly the lower Court had not done so. It had simply dismissed the I.A.
6. En passant, I would like to point out that it is a trite proposition of law that the defendant should be given opportunity and liberty to amend the written statement or file additional written statement, taking necessary pleas. However, in this case, in view of the error committed by the lower Court, consequent upon the error committed by the defendants, I would like to remit the matter back to the lower Court. On receipt of the order, within a period of 15 days, the defendants shall furnish a fresh neatly typed petition incorporating the proposed amendment. Whereupon on the same number of the I.A., it shall be retained on file. After giving due opportunity of filing counter thereon by the plaintiff and on hearing the matter, the Court shall pass a considerate and reasoned order.
7. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Msk To The I Additional District Munsif, Vridhachalam