RAMAKRISHNA DHABOVANAM Vs. KASI DURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order of dismissal of the Amendment Application dated 06. 06. 2003 by the learned principal District Munsif, Valliyur made in I. A. No. 562 of 2003 in O. S. No. 253 of 1996. The Plaintiff Sri Ramakrishna Dhabovanam is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) O. S. No. 253 of 1996:- The Plaintiff is a Trust having its head Office at Thiruparai Thurai. The Plaintiff Trust runs several Educational institutions for the benefit of poor people. In Disayanvilai Village , the Plaintiff Trust had started an Educational Institution in 1983. After upgradation of the School as a High School, the School required open space for play Ground. For the purpose of Play Ground, Western Side of the Property was purchased by the Plaintiff Trust by the Sale Deed dated 22. 12. 1994. The defendant owns a small piece of land on the West of the Plaint Schedule and on the South Western Corner of the land there is tomb. Since the School Play ground is a sprawling open space either the Children enter into the land or the cattle from the Western Side enter into the School area, causing interference to the school children. The Land was surveyed on 31. 12. 1994. At that time, the defendant made a strange claim of right over the Suit Property and threatened to interfere with the possession of the Suit Property by the Plaintiff Trust. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from in any way interfering with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the order of dismissal of the Amendment application, the Plaintiff School has preferred this civil Revision Petition. Drawing the attention of the Court to the boundary description, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff School has submitted that the Description of Boundaries had been stated mistakenly and the mistake was not wanton. Submitting that by the change of the Boundaries, the description of the property is not changed. Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner / Plaintiff School assailed the impugned Order contending that the lower Court has not properly appreciated the purport of the scope of the Amendment. Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner has further submitted that the Suit was filed in Sub-Court, tirunelveli in O. S. No. 10 of 1995, which was later transferred to District Munsif Court , valliyoor and re-numbered as O. S. No. 253 of 1996. Either the counsel at tirunelveli or the Counsel at Valliyoor could detect the mistake earlier and only when the Court pointed out the variation, the Plaintiff came to know about the mistake crept in. Submitting that P. W. 2 is a Member of the Welfare committee, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that due to non-availability of the President at the time, the Amendment Application was filed through P. W. 2 and the Application does not suffer from any impropriety and the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Application as not maintainable.