CHINNASAMY REDDIYAR Vs. M POTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the eighth defendant in the suit, which was filed by the first respondent in O. S. No. 232 of 2004 praying for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, three schedules of property were mentioned. Pending suit, the first respondent herein has filed I. A. No. 186 of 2004 for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed by the trial court, hence this revision petition.

(2.) THE first respondent herein has filed the above said interloctuary application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the second schedule of the plaint, which according to her does not contain the entire details and in order to furnish full description, she sought for amendment by way of including 4th schedule, however, the boundaries mentioned in the second schedule covers all the properties, hence the same would not amount to including new property or new cause of action.

(3.) APPLYING the above said ratio in this case, this Court is of the view that the first respondent failed to mention the entire details of the second schedule of property despite the fact boundary is mentioned. The amendment sought for, in crux, is to mention the details of the survey number which is located within the boundary, of course, the case of the petitioner is it is not within the said boundary, hence, the first respondent sought permission to incorporate 4th schedule to the suit. Indeed, the 4th schedule cannot be required as stated by the first respondent, however, but for furnishing clear details of the property in dispute, there is nothing wrong in allowing the first respondent to incorporate a new schedule. The trial court also discussed the case elaborately and allowed the application for amendment.