A PALANI Vs. JAYARAM KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs. THEy filed an application before the trial Court for amendment of the plaint seeking the prayer of recovery of possession, instead of permanent injunction. This application was dismissed by the trial Court as belated one. Hence, the civil revision petition.

(2.) MR.T.Gandhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the impugned order would submit that the reasoning given by the trial Court in dismissing the application for amendment that it is a belated one, is not a legal one and therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside, especially, whenO.6, Rule 17, C.P.C. would state that the application for amendment can be filed at any stage of the trial.

(3.) THERE is no dispute in the fact that the petitioners filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in the year 1987. According to the petitioners/ plaintiffs, in the plaint, they have stated that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the very same year, the defendants filed a written statement stating that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is specifically stated in the written statement that the patta and kists receipts have been issued in the name of the defendants and as such, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.