T C ROY Vs. SRI FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dissatisfied with the order in I.A. No. 409 of 1999 in O. S. No. 523 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Changanacherry, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 523 of 1997. The suit was filed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent or his men from forcefully entering into the plaint schedule property, from taking possession of any portion of the same, from executing any document in respect of any portion of the plaint schedule property and for other consequential reliefs. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. 2111 of 1997 for a temporary injunction of the like nature. I.A. No. 409 of 1999 was filed for amendment of the plaint. The averment in the affidavit shows that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent herein demolished the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property. So he filed I.A. No. 409 of 1999 under O.6, R.17. The amendment sought for is to incorporate a prayer for fixation of the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property. The amendment application was opposed by the defendant by filing a counter affidavit. The learned Munsiff dismissed the amendment application for the reason that if the amendment is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit. Aggrieved by the order of the lower court, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Heard both sides.

(3.) The only point for consideration is whether there is any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower court. Originally, the suit was for an injunction simpliciter. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has demolished the old boundary and at present there is no boundary separating the plaint schedule property and the property of the respondent which lies on the southern side of the plaint schedule property. If the amendment is not allowed, it would cause great hardship and injury to the petitioner. It would create multiplicity of suits also. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that there is no bona fides for the petition. The averment in the plaint shows that there is no boundary separating the property of the plaintiff and defendant. Even then the petitioner preferred a suit for injunction simpliciter only. There is no bona fides in filing an amendment application. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent cannot raise such a contention since in the written statement his specific case is that there is well defined boundary between the property of the plaintiff and the defendant. The specific case of the revision petitioner is that the boundary has been demolished during the pendency of the suit and therefore, it has become necessary to amend the plaint for fixation of the boundary. No prejudice will be caused to the respondent even if the amendment is allowed.