K KRISHNACHARI Vs. MALATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this civil revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure arises from the judgment and order dated 31-8-1995 whereby the trial court i.e., the learned munsiff, hunsur has dismissed the application moved by the plaintiff-applicant under order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before i proceed further I may mention that the court below has also taken that the application for amendment is by deletion of relief of permanent injunction has been sought for. But on perusal of the application, i do not find that the relief for permanent injunction has been sought to be deleted. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff i.e., revision applicant originally filed a suit for permanent injunction with the allegations to the effect that the plaintiff-revision applicant has been a tenant in the premises in the dispute on behalf of defendant-landlord and he further alleged to be in possession of the schedule property. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was making efforts to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff who claimed himself to be the tenant. That as such the need of filing of suit for permanent injunction had arisen. The plaintiff-applicant also moved an application for temporary injunction which according to the plaintiff-applicant had been granted by the trial court by order dated 30th september, 1993 directing the defendants not interfere with the plaintiff-applicant over the suit property. The plaintiff-applicant's case, while making the application for amendment, was that inspite of the temporary injunction order on 1-10-1993, the defendant broke open the doors of the premises in dispute and took unauthorised possession and on account of this subsequent event, need for amendment for the plaint has arisen and as such, he was making the application for amendment in the plaint after having brought subsequent events to the notice of the court.

(2.) in the amendment application by way of amendment, thepetitioner sought to delete the allegations contained in the last two sentences of para 7 which were as follows:

(3.) in para 8 of the plaint, it has been stated the expressionand attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from schedule premises, they may be allowed to be deleted and in their place, he may be allowed to add on 1-10-1993, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the plaint schedule premises by the defendant and removed the entire movables belonging to the plaintiff from the schedule premises and subsequently in the prayer column, the plaintiff wanted to add after expression judgment and decree the following; declaring that the plaintiff is the tenant under the defendant and in occupation of the suit schedule premises and directing the defendant for restoration and possession of the schedule premises and this expression the plaintiff wanted to add as mentioned earlier after the expression judgment and decree and before the expression for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff....