USHA RANGANATHAN Vs. ARULMIGHU ANJANEYASWAMY THIRUKOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition arises against the order dated 29. 03. 2004 in I. A. No. 184 of 2004 in O. S. 708 of 1998 passed by the I additional District Munsif, Salem, in having allowed an application for amending the prayer of the suit.

(2.) ORIGINALLY, a suit was filed for bare injunction and the plaint was presented on 29. 07. 1998. The revision petitioners, who were D4 to D8 in the suit, have filed a written statement on 06. 09. 2000 stating that they have put up construction in the suit property even prior to the filing of the plaint, which was in July 1998. Subsequently, on 29. 01. 1994, after a lapse of more than three years since filing the written statement, wherein the new averment of having constructed a building in the suit property by the revision petitioners was made, the 1st respondent / plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the prayer from bare injunction to mandatory injunction and removal of the construction.

(3.) HAVING regard to the circumstances and facts available in this case and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we have to approve the allowance of the amendment as done by the trial court with a slight modification that there can be a cost of Rs. 1000/= payable by the plaintiff to d4 to D8 (revision petitioners) in the suit within a month inasmuch as this amendment should have been taken even earlier i. e. immediately after 06. 09. 2000 when the fact of construction of revision petitioners / D4 to D8 in the suit property was brought out in the written statement. The amendment may not originate from the date of plaint and it has to take effect only from the date of application for amendment, viz. , 29. 01. 2004. The issue of limitation also will be framed by the trial court and dealt with according to law. Inasmuch as evidence on the side of the plaintiff is almost over, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.