LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-269

VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. SADAGOPAN AND ORS.

Decided On March 12, 2015
VIJAYALAKSHMI Appellant
V/S
Sadagopan And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the original suit O.S. No. 322 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi is the petitioner in the present revision. She filed the above said suit against the respondents for bare injunction claiming that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and the respondents herein are trying to disturb her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondents contested the suit by filing a written statement disputing the title of the petitioner in respect of the suit property among other contentions. The trial in the suit had begun and evidence on the side of the plaintiff was over. At the time of cross examination of DW1, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 3041/2011 seeking permission to amend the plaint to incorporate a prayer for declaration of title and the valuation and court fee column in the plaint. The said petition was resisted by the respondents herein/defendants contending that the amendment sought for could not be allowed, as trial of the suit had already begun and it could not be contended that the petitioner/plaintiff was diligent enough and still she was not able to raise the matter before the commencement of the trial.

(2.) The learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, after hearing both sides, discountenanced the contention of the revision petitioner herein/plaintiff and dismissed the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the impugned order dated 30.01.2012. The legality and sustainability of the said order are questioned in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory power of the High Court over the courts subordinate to it.

(3.) The arguments advanced by Mr. S.M.S. Shriram Narayanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. R. Venkatajalapathy, learned counsel appearing for Mr. K. Sasindran, counsel on record for the respondents are heard. The impugned order and other papers produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.