BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in I.A.No.366 of 2002 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.281 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam are the revision petitioners. The revision is filed against the dismissal of the said petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint seeking alternative relief of possession.

(2.) ORIGINALLY the suit was filed by Ganapathy Gounder for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit was filed on 19.1.1995. It appears, the defendants filed written statement that they have been in possession and they have perfected title by adverse possession and further stated that the suit property was purchased by them. During the pendecny of the suit, the plaintiff Ganapathy Gounder died and the plaintiffs 2 to 6, viz., the revision petitioners have been added as his legal representatives. They filed the I.A.No.366 of 2002 seeking amendment of the plaint for the alternative relief of possession inasmuch as the suit is contested by the respondents/defendants that they have been in possession of the suit property and they have perfected title by adverse possession.

(3.) THE trial Court by stating that the suit was posted for trial on 14.6.2002 and the amendment petition was filed despite the fact the suit was filed as early as in the year 1995 and was being adjourned for filing written statement and after filing written statement in the year 1998, in which the defendants have stated that they have been in possession and they have perfected title by adverse possession. Further, while stating that in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition, it is not mentioned as to when the defendants have trespassed into the suit property and as such, the petition filed nearly 7 years after filing of the suit seeking the alternative relief of possession as sought for is barred by time. Further by also stating that if the proposed amendment is allowed, there will be new cause of action and in that view, the trial Court dismissed the amendment petition. The order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.