SIVAGAMI Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is challenged herein is an order of the learned District Munsif, Sankari, allowing an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) IT was a suit filed by the respondent herein for declaration of title and for other reliefs. IT is an admitted position that the necessary issues were framed, and the parties went on trial, and the trial was also over. The case was posted for hearing the arguments of both sides. At that time, the instant application for amendment was filed. The said application for amendment was allowed. Challenging the said order, the defendants have brought forth this revision.

(3.) AS far as the decision relied upon by the respondent and reported in Ragu Thilak D.John v. S.Rayappan and others Ragu Thilak D.John v. S.Rayappan and others (2001)2 S.C.C. 472 is concerned, it was a case where during the pendency of the suit, the respondents entered into his property and demolished a portion of the property, and there arose a necessity for including a prayer for recovery of damages, and though it was refused to be allowed, in the appeal, the Apex Court has allowed the amendment. But the instant case is not a case of that nature. Insofar as the second decision reported in Selvarj and others v. Chennasamy Gounder (2001)2 MLJ. 769: (2001)3 L.W. 529 is concerned, it has no application to the present facts of the case, since in the instant case, the Court is unable to see any reason for condonation of the delay. In the instant case, if the amendment is allowed, it would not only take away the character of the suit, but also the basis of the suit itself. Under the circumstances, the lower court without considering the legal position in the proper perspective, has allowed the application, which is illegal in the eye of law. Thus, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside.