MUTHUVEL Vs. PONNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri dated 17.12.2009 made in I.A.No.773 of 2009 in O.S.No.109 of 2007.

(2.) THE plaintiff in the aforesaid suit is the petitioner herein and the defendants thereon are the respondents herein.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that since the respondents in their evidence has stated that they are in possession of the property, the petitioner was constrained to file the application for amendment seeking alternative prayer for possession. That apart, learned counsel has contended that even in the plaint it has been pleaded by the petitioner that the respondents are claiming possession over the suit property. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to file the application for amendment. LEARNED counsel has further added that if there is no change of cause of action and no new sets of facts have been introduced by way of an amendment, the amendment has to be allowed. Unfortunately, the Court below has dismissed the application which requires interference by this Court.