A. RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. P. MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dtd. 16/10/2019 passed in I.A.No.463 of 2018 in O.S.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Kovilpatti. The said application was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 r/w. Sec.151 of C.P.C seeking amendment of prayer by adding an alternate relief of declaration of title cum injunction.

(2.) The original prayer in the suit was to set aside certain registered documents and other documents. From the perusal of the plaint and the averments therein, it is seen that respondent/plaintiffs has claimed title over the subject property and thereby sought setting aside of certain documents executed among the defendants. The said application was allowed by the learned Trail court on the ground that the same is necessary in order to resolve the dispute between the parties once for all, and to avoid future litigations. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on an earlier occasion the respondents/plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.104 of 2007 seeking to declare certain registered documents documents as null and void without seeking cancellation of the said documents. Therefore, the said suit was dismissed for want of seeking cancellation of the said documents. As against the same, the respondents plaintiffs have preferred A.S.No.13 of 2012 on the file the Appellate court, and during the pendency of the said appeal they filed I.A.No.160 of 2012, seeking permission to withdraw O.S.No.104 of 2007 with liberty to file a fresh suit seeking cancellation of the registered documents within a period of 2 months. Liberty as sought for was granted by an order dtd. 30/1/2013 and consequently, the respondent/plaintiffs have filed a suit on 28/3/2013 within two months, seeking cancellation of the certain registered documents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners after elapse of five years, the respondents/ plaintiffs have filed the present application seeking amendment of the prayer. The same was objected to on the ground that the liberty that was granted by the Lower Appellate Court in the previous round of litigation is only to file a suit within a period of two months. But the present application is filed after lapse of five years and therefore the same cannot be entertained. It is also also further contented that the present application is intended only to delay the suit proceedings without any bonafides.