VELLAI AMMAL Vs. CHINNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners here in are the plaintiffs in o. S. No. 431 of 1992 in the Court of District Munsif of Nilakottai. THEy filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their enjoyment of the suit property which is Survey No. 381 /l 1-0. 94 acres - Old Patta No. 798, New Patta No. 1918 in Jambuthuraikottai Village , Nilakottai Taluk. THE ad interim injunction obtained by them in I. ANo. 694 of 1991 in that suit was vacated on 16. 3. 1992. Alleging that subsequently the defendants have trespassed into the suit land and dispossessed them, they have come forward with i. A. No. 387 of 1992 under O. 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. to amend the plaint so as tosubstitute the relief of injunction by one for recovery of possession. Besides, stating that the trespass alleged is not true and that they are in enjoyment of the property since the date of their purchase on 9. 10. 1979 the defendants did not give any valid objection for amending the plaint in their counter - statement. THEy only stated that the proposed amendment is not valid in law. THE court below has dismissed the said application for the reason that as per the aver-men ts in the counter the defendants are in possession since the date of their sale deed on 9. 10. 1979. And this revision is directed against the said order. After notice of motion, on common consent arguments were heard on this civil revision petition.

(2.) THE trial court states that on consideration of the claims of both sides, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners/ plaintiffs. Evidently this is a non-speaking order and the court below has not stated the contentions of the respective parties and the reason for its conclusion.

(3.) IN the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Court below in I. A. No. 387 of 1992 is set aside and the amendment prayed for is permitted. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs throughout. .