S MARAGADHATHAMMAL Vs. SIVASANKARA BHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the petitioners in this revision petition against the order dated 26. 7. 1993, in T. A. No. 1433 of 1992 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, which allowed the said application for amendment of their plaint. THE respondents'suit O. S. No. 35 of 1987 is for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for possession. THE plaintiffs sought for three amendments including the following two (a) to include the registration number of the plaintiffs'association and (b) to include the relief of mandatory injunction for restoration of the thrashing floor and cart track. But, with reference to the lower court's order allowing these two amendments, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not advance any serious argument. He seriously advanced argument only with reference to the undermentioned third amendment. Hence, I deal with the said argument, relating to the said amendment only.

(2.) IN the original plaint, the plea was that the 1st defendant's husband was the Manibadar. But in the abovesaid amendment application, the allegation as found in the supporting affidavit therein, is as follows: On the abovesaid allegation, the original admission made in the original plaint was sought to be retracted. Since the court below has allowed the abovesaid proposed amendment, the defendants have preferred this revision. But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to have such amendment since it seeks to retract the original admission in the original plaint.

(3.) THE other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, viz. , Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar, A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 1562: (1984)4 S. C. C. 90, has no application to the present facts.