D VIJAYAN Vs. V K ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS are the petitioners in this civil revision petition against the dismissal of their I. A. No. 6274 of 1993 for amending their plaint in O. S. No. 10966 of 1989 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court , Madras . The said suit seeks permanent injunction against interference of their possession of the suit building. The proposed amendment seeks possession relief in the place of injunction relief.

(2.) THEIR averments in the said application are as follows: In I. A. No. 12690 of 1989, they got temporary injunction which has been confirmed by the first appellate court in C. M. A. No. 28 of 1990 and by this Court in C. R. P. No. 1826 of 1990. But the defendants respondents filed C. S. No. 1826 of 1990 in this Court for declaration of title to the same suit land on the footing that the property was different. The said defendants also got temporary injunction against the plaintiffs herein on 6. 8. 1990. But subsequently on the filing of O. S. A. No. 85 of 1991 in this Court by the plaintiffs herein, the said injunction was stayed by order dated 22. 7. 1991 and the said stay was also made absolute in C. M. P. No. 5181 of 1991 therein. (The plaintiffs' 'vendors have also filed O. S. No. 1077 of 1992 in this Court for declaration that the above said suit property belongs to the plaintiffs herein ). But the respondents have put up shops buildings in the suit land after committing criminal trespass over the present suit land. So, since they have thus forcibly taken possession from the plaintiffs pending the present suit, the petitioners have filed the abovesaid application for amendment of the plaint seeking possession relief with reference to the suit land after removing the superstructure put up by respondents. They also wanted suitable amendment of the body of the plaint introducing certain additional paragraphs narrating the abovesaid subsequent events and they also wanted suitable consequential amendment of paragraph 5 of the plaint altering the value of the suit to Rs. 1,50,000.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions. Normally, there would have been no difficulty in setting aside the impugned order and allowing the proposed amendment since the said amendment is sought for only in view of the alleged subsequent event of dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit property by the defendants and since the law is that the court would take notice of the changed circumstances, where by reason of the subsequent events, the original relief claimed has become| inappropriate Vide: Rajeshwar dayal v. P. K. Kothari, A. l. R. 1979 Raj. 17 or where the litigation gets shortened or where the consideration of the subsequent events gives complete justice to the parlies. Vide: Shikharchand v. D. J. P. Karini Sabha, A. I. R. 1974 s. C. 1178: (1974)1 S. C. C. 675 and Vineer Kumar v. Manga/ Sain Wadhera, (1984)3 s. C. C. 352. In (1984)3 S. C. C. 352, the relevant observation is as follows: ' 'Normally amendment is not allowed if it changes the cause of action. But it is well recognised that where the amendment docs not constitute an addition of a new cause of action, or raise a new case, but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on the record, the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation.' ' Courts have even gone to the extent of saying that even without a formal amendment adding possession relief in the original injunction suit, possession relief could be given when such relief would not be inconsistent with the plaintiffs case. Vide: Bundi Singh v. Shivanandan Prasad, a. I. R. 1950 Pat. 89.