CHINNA PILLAI UDAYAR Vs. NATESA UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, preferred under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 28. 02. 2003, passed in I. A. No. 262/2002 in O. S. No. 112/2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur, dismissing the petition filed under Or. 6, R. 17 CPC, declining the amendment of Plaint. Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) O. S. NO. 112/2000:-THE Plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction relating to the house in Village Natham S. No. 508/04 Illappaiyoor Village. AB wall on the southern side of his house is in dispute. The Defendant owns site on the Southern side of the AB wall. He has no right or interest in the suit AB wall. While so, the Defendant was digging pit on the southern side of the AB wall, thereby, attempting to cause damage to the Wall. The Defendant has no right to put up any construction, either on the wall or on the southern side of it. The Defendant is bound to leave two feet space on the southern side of AB wall. If he puts up the construction, wall would be very much damaged. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction relating to the southern side AB wall and the house, restraining the Defendant and his men from in any way encroaching the southern side property and putting up construction, damaging the suit AB wall.

(3.) EARLIER, as per order in I. A. No. 322/2000, Commissioner was appointed who has inspected the suit property and filed his report stating that the Defendant had dug three pits on the southern side of AB wall. Thereafter, the suit was decreed exparte on 29. 10. 2001. On the application filed by the Defendant, the exparte decree passed against him was set aside. Thereafter, the Defendant has filed the Written Statement on 24. 09. 2002.