Inveighing the order dated 21.6.2007 passed in I.A.No.746 of 2006 in O.S.No.330 of 2004 by the District Munsif, Arani, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. A 'resume' of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition, would run thus:-
The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.330 of 2004 before the District Munsif, Arni, seeking the following relief:
VERANCULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.746 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. After hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the application. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with, the said order, this civil revision petition is focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds inter alia thus:
The amendment sought for in the I.A.is not in the nature of changing the cause of action; the lower Court failed to see that only after the institution of the suit, the defendant encroached into the suit property and hence, it necessitated the plaintiff to file such amendment and the lower Court, simply relying on the Commissioner's report, should not have rejected the application. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the I.A.
3. Despite printing the names of both sides, no one appeared.
4. Perused the records including the typed set of papers and the order of the lower Court.
5. It is obvious and axiomatic, apparent and pellucid, plain and pagtent that the original suit itself is for declaration of the title of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction. It is the specific case of the petitioner/plaintiff in the I.A. that on 27.6.2004, the defendant barged into the middle portion of the suit property, harvested illegally the crops cultivated by the plaintiff and that he is in irruption of the said area. However, in support of his contention no shred or shard, iota or miniscule extent of prima facie evidence was placed before the Court. The lower Court, appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly referred to the fact that even though the plaintiff would contend as though as early as on 27.6.2004 the defendant committed such trespass, nonetheless, the I.A.No.746 of 2006 was filed only after about 2= years, so to say on 11.2.2006. Absolutely, no explanation or reason is found detailed and delineated in the affidavit accompanying the said I.A. No police complaint also was given as against such alleged trespass during the pendency of the suit. Normally, if any such barging in to the portion of the suit property, at the instance of the defendant happens, naturally the plaintiff would approach the Court immediately complaining about the same. But in this case, no such step was taken by the plaintiff.
6. En passant, I would like to spotlight that it is a trite proposition of law that a litigant should not be allowed to take chances with the Court by filing a suit for injunction and after reading or sensing the situation, try to get converted the injunction suit into one for recovery of possession either wholly or partly. As such, the trial Court is right in its approach in analysing the matter au fait with law and au courant with factual circumstances, and ultimately in dismissing the I.A., which warrants no interference.
7. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 21.6.2007 passed in I.A.No.746 of 2006 in O.S.No.330 of 2004 by the District Munsif, Arani. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Msk To The District Munsif, Arani