K SHANMUGHAM Vs. S LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in the suit have filed the above revision against the order, allowing an application for amendment of the plaint in o. S. No. 410 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, praying for a relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein from in any way interfering with the rights of the plaintiff to enjoy the suit property as common passage.

(2.) THE Plaintiff, the respondent herein, has filed an application, I. A. No. 1401 of 1994 seeking for an amendment for the relief of mandatory injunction on the ground that after the receipt of the order of interim injunction, the petitioners herein had constructed a septic tank in the suit property which completely obstructed the suit common passage. Further, the petitioners have put up a balcony projecting the suit passage and as these constructions have been put up pending the suit, the petitioners have filed the application for amendment of the plaint in order to seek the relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants therein to remove the unauthorised construction errected over the suit property in the ground level and above the groung level and also the balcony. THE lower Court has considered the amendment sought for and allowed the same on the ground that the relief sought for is based upon the subsequent event that took place during the pendency of the suit. THE learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the plaintiff cannot seek a dual relief in the case by seeking for an amendment. If the plaintiff is aggrieved due to the subsequent events that took place, it is always open to the plaintiff to file a separate suit and she cannot be permitted to seek any relief in respect of the subsequent events by way of amendment. I do not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. So long as the cause of action for the original suit is not changed and when the other relief is based on the subsequent events that took place during the pendency of the suit and the nature of the suit also is not changed, the amendment cannot be refused. THEre is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order of the Court below and hence, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. .