MARIYA FRANCIS AND ANOTHER Vs. PETER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the trial court. The present respondents instituted O.S. No. 373 of 1984 against them in the Court of District Munsif of Tirukoilur for a declaration that they are the owners of suit A and B schedule properties and for permanent injunction in respect of 'A' schedule property and recovery of possession in respect of 'B' schedule property. Revision petitioners contested the suit. The suit came up for trial and one witness on the side of the plaintiffs and three witnesses on the side of the defendants were examined. Exs.A-1 to A-22 and Exs. B-1 to B-24 were also marked. At that time the plaintiffs came forward with I.A. No. 1150 of 1987 under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking certain amendments of the plaint. The amendments mainly related to date of death of their grand-father, inclusion of a property schedule comprising of lands that came to the respective sharers in an earlier partition in 1954, among the fathers of parties other and for certain consequential recitals. Holding that the properties comprised in the new 'C schedule have been included on the basis of the evidence so far gone on record and that this introduces hew cause of action, learned District Munsif has dismissed the petition. It does not appear that this order of the trial court dated 3.8.1987 was challenged by the plaintiffs. Subsequently the suit was decreed on 6.10.1987. The first defendant took up the matter in appeal in A.S. No. 49 of 1988 - before Sub Court, Villupuram. In this judgment dated 15.7.1989 learned Sub Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the matter for fresh trial so as to enable both sides to let in additional evidence besides the materials on record to substantiate their respective contentions. Accordingly the suit again came up for trial in the Court of District Munsif.

(2.) On 20.10.1989 the plaintiffs again came forward with I.A. No. 2002 of 1989' under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking practically the same amendment of plaint which they have asked for in I.A. No. 1150 of 1987. This petition was resisted by the defendants that in view of the order in I.A. No. H 50 of 1987 the petition is not maintainable and that the proposed amendment would alter the nature and character of the suit. Learned District Munsif allowed the petition without cost. So defendants in the suit have come forward with this civil revision petition assailing the said order.

(3.) In the impugned order learned District Munsif has not given any reasons for his conclusions. He has simply extracted the contents of the pleadings, reiterated then twice and held that there is nothing wrong in carrying out the amendments as prayed for. It is practically a non-speaking order without giving any reasons for its conclusion.