PALANISAMY Vs. SELLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 27.01.2011 in I.A.No.2049 of 2010 in O.S.No.264 of 2007 passed by the Learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff, the Petitioner/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.264 of 2007 on the file of the Learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants from interfering, in any manner, with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It comes to be known that the First Respondent/First Defendant has filed the written statement (adopted by other defendants) and as on date, the suit in O.S.No.264 of 2007 is pending. It further transpires that a partition suit in O.S.No.120 of 2008 has been filed by the Respondents/Defendants before the trial Court in which the written statement has been filed and the matter is pending as on date.

(3.) FURTHER , he has also stated that I.A.No.2049 of 2010 has been filed praying permission of the trial Court to amend the description of property and to include the items that have been left out. In the counter filed by the First Respondent/First Defendant (before the trial Court), it is mentioned that the Petitioner/ Plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.264 of 2007 in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.141/10 and 141/17. On 22.02.2008, the Respondents/Defendants have filed O.S.No.120 of 2008 seeking partition of the Schedule properties mentioned therein and in the comprehensive suit, the two items purportedly, left out by the Petitioner/Plaintiff in O.S.No.264 of 2007, have been included. When a Court of Law deals with an amendment of plaint application, it may adopt a lenient and liberal view, so as to secure the ends of justice.