S AHAMED MEERAN Vs. S KUMARASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02. 09. 2004 of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli in i. A. No. 1076 of 2004 in O. S. No. 297 of 2002, allowing the Amendment Application filed under Order VI Rule 17 C. P. C on payment of costs of Rs. 1000/ -. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) O. S. No. 297 of 2002 relates to House Property. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Suit Property belonged to one Hassan Mohideen, who has executed a Registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one s. Arunachalam to deal with the Plaint Schedule Property. The Plaintiff purchased the Suit Property from the said S. Arunachalam by a Sale Deed dated 01. 12. 1997. In the said Sale Deed, a major portion of the Sale Price has been reserved for payment. Subsequently, the said reserved amount has been paid by the Plaintiff to the General Power of Attorney S. Arunachalam on 11. 04. 2002. The Plaintiff has received the "panapattru Receipt" (gzg;gw;w) from the said S. Arunachalam. Immediately after the Sale , possession of the Suit Property was delivered to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. The Assessment has been changed in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has also paid the Tax due for the Suit Property. Electricity service connection has also been transferred in the name of the Plaintiff on 25. 07. 1998. Defendants 1 and 2 are making false claim in the Suit Property. On 10. 05. 2002, Defendants 1 and 2 instigated by Defendants 3 and 4 came and demanded the Plaintiff to make the payment of the amount alleged to be due from his Vendor. Since the Defendants are attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the Property, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent / Plaintiff has submitted that Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C. P. C would be applicable only to the pleadings of the Suit filed after 01. 07. 2002. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in 2005 (3) C. T. C. 321, learned counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff has submitted that the Proviso to Order vi Rule 17 C. P. C would have no applicability to the Pleadings filed prior to 01. 07. 2002. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in 2003 (2) L. W. 21, learned counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff has submitted that in considering the Amendment Application, Courts are to adopt a liberal approach. Reiterating the findings of the Trial Court, learned counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff has submitted that the delay in filing the Amendment Application has been properly compensated by directing the Respondent / Plaintiff to pay the costs of Rs. 1000/- and that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.