TEJRAJ Vs. B SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the revision petitioner herein. He has filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the residential portion consisting of the entire third floor in Premises No.411, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-79. THE suit was filed on 3.11.2000. Pending the suit he has filed I.A.No.18371/2000 for interim injunction also. Only notice was ordered in the said petition returnable on 17.11.2000. On that day the defendants also entered appearance through an Advocate. THEreafter the petition was posted for filing counter on 11.1.2001. THEreafter fresh notice was also issued to the first defendant. According to the revision petitioner, even the registered letters sent to the first respondent were returned with an endorsement as "refused" and "left". However, both the defendants were aware of the pendency of the suit as early as 8.11.2000 on the date when the notice was served upon the second defendant.

(2.) IT is also alleged by the revision petitioner that taking advantage of the fact that only notice was ordered in the injunction petition, the second defendant in collusion with the first defendant damaged the suit premises and ransacked all his belongings kept in his house during his absence for a few days. Before the injunction petition was heard, the defendants also demolished the entire building. The trial court also granted interim injunction on 7.2.2001. Even after that by flouting the order of injunction they demolished the rest of the portion. Thus according to the plaintiff, the prayer in the suit is unenforceable and therefore sought for amendment of the suit prayers to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

(3.) FURTHER, In a suit filed for bare permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession in a old building, the new prayer for redelivery of a new building cannot be sought for. Admittedly, the old building has been totally demolished after vacating the tenanted premises and handed over to the defendants and hence the suit as well as the petition for amendment become infructuous. The cause of action is entirely different and therefore the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai rightly rejected the petition for amending the plaint. There is no infirmity or error of law in the said order. Therefore, this revision is liable to be dismissed.