RAMACHANDRAN Vs. BASKAR SETHUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction, stating that the suit schedule property is a vacant site and he is the owner of the suit property and as the revision petitioner/defendant attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also questioned the title, he filed the suit for the reliefs, as stated above. The respondent/plaintiff also filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C., within three months from the date of filing of the suit to add the relief of recovery of possession, stating that, after the filing of the suit, the revision petitioner trespassed into the suit property and put up a house construction, despite objections raised by the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the prayer for the relief of injunction has to be deleted and the prayer for recovery of possession has to be included. That application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) IT is further submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that under Order II, Rule 2 CPC, when the plaintiff has asked for various reliefs and omitted to ask for such reliefs in the suit filed by him, he cannot afterwards sue in respect of the relief, which was omitted by him or relinquished by him, except, with the leave of the court. Therefore, the only option open to the respondent is to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit to include the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The Court below, without considering these aspects, allowed the application.