KUMAR Vs. KOTHANDAPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the case papers including the impugned order made by the Trial Court.

(2.) THE petitioners herein are the defendants before the Trial Court, while the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief" of permanent injunction in respect of certain property alleging that the suit property belongs to him and that the petitioners herein have no manner of right, title or interest thereover, but, in spite of that they were making hurried attempt to put up construction in the suit property. On these averments made in the plaint, the respondent-plaintiff sought for the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners herein. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application in I. A. No. VII under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC seeking additional relief of mandatory injunction on the ground that the petitioners herein have put up certain construction in the suit property during the pendency of the said suit. The said application of the respondent-plaintiff having been allowed by the Trial Court, the instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended before me that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit inasmuch as the suit brought by the plaintiff originally was for the relief of permanent injunction, which is now sought to be changed for mandatory injunction by the proposed amendment. She also contended that the petitioners have put up construction pursuant to an order of temporary injunction granted in their favour in the suit filed by the petitioners in respect of their property. She, therefore, contended that the impugned order made by the Trial Court warrants interference in revision by this Court.