SAKUNTHALA AMMAL Vs. RADHA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of the order passed by the learned District Munsif in I.A. No. 481 of 1993 filed for amending the plaint.

(2.) THE petitioner is the respondent in the said interlocutory application. THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the learned District Munsif has passed an one line order without giving the details of the application and discussing with the rival contentions of both parties and therefore, it must be set aside. THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand argued that the suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment and for other reliefs and that a commissioner has been appointed by the lower Court and the report of the commissioner is to the effect that the defendant is in possession of the property and therefore the plaintiff/respondent was obliged to file an application for amending the prayer in the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and the amendment has not brought out a new case for the plaintiff and it is only during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has come to know of the trespass committed by the defendant and therefore, there is no fresh cause of action and as such, the order passed by the trial Court is proper.

(3.) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for re-hearing and disposal, in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.