VILUPPURAM TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY Vs. COMMISSIONER KOLIYANUR PANCHAYAT UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 02.02.2009, made in I.A. No. 62 of 2007 in O.S. No. 330 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court No. II, Villupuram, the Villupuram Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Co-operative House Building Society, represented by its President, has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Material on record discloses that the above said society has filed a suit in O.S. No. 105 of 2000, for a judgment and decree, in their favour, by declaring that the suit property is a public road, meant for the benefit of general public and the members of the plain-tiff-society and also prayed for a direction to the fourth defendant to remove the obstruction caused by means of mandatory injunction and for other reliefs. Written statements have been filed by the defendants 1,4 to 7 on 18.10.2002, 22.02.2002, 03.10.2002, 21.10.2002 and 11.12.2001 respectively. Subsequently, as some of the defendants, died, the amendments were carried out. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed I.A. No. 61 of 2007 on 15.02.2007, seeking for an amendment, contending inter alia that the 6th defendant in the suit, died. However, his legal representatives were already on record. The proposed amendment in I.A.No. 61 of 2007, are as follows:

(3.) Objecting to the said amendment petition, the 5th defendant has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, he has contended that the suit was in a part heard stage, for more than two years and that at the stage of cross-examination of DW.2, petition in I. A. No. 61 of 2007 has been filed. He further submitted tl)at the chief examination of DW.2, was done long back and for cross-examination, the matter has been adjourned for several months. Thereafter, 1 A. No. 325 of 2006 has been filed fox amendment and that the said petition was dismissed on 12.10.2006. Now, the present petition in I.A. No. 61 of 2007, is nothing but a verbatim reproduction of the earlier amendment sought for. The fifth defendant has further submitted that the suit has been filed in the year 2000 and after so many years, amendment has been sought for, after examination of the plaintiffs. He has further submitted that the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the suit, where evidence had already been closed at the side of the plaintiffs.