SYNAM BEEVI AMMAL Vs. SEENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petition is preferred against the Order made in I.A. No. 282/2005 in O.S. No. 197 of 2000, dated 3.10.2005, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranoor, Pudukottai District, dismissing the Amendment Application. Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) PLAINTIFF has filed O.S. No. 197/2000 for Permanent Injunction relating to nine items of properties. The 7th Item of property is S.No. 293/4 Nanjai 2.48.0 H. The PLAINTIFF has filed I.A. No. 282/2005 to amend the 7th Item S. No. 293/4 - 2.48.0 H. as S. No. 293/4B - 2.32.0 H. According to the PLAINTIFF, the adjacent property of about sixteen cents belong to one Meenal and that after the filing of the Suit, she came to know that S.No. 293/4 has been sub-divided as 293/4 - 16 cents and S. No. 293/4B - 2.32.0 H, which she came to know only when she obtained Adangal for Fasli 1410 to 1415 and hence sought for amendment.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the dismissal of the Amendment Petition, the Plaintiff has preferred this Revision. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner Plaintiff has submitted that the Schedule Property is sub-divided as S. No. 293/4 and S. No. 293/4-B [property of the Petitioner] and hence ought to have allowed the amendment. It is further contended that the suit is of the year 2000 and as per the decision in Rethinam @ Anna Samuthiram Ammal and Others v. Syed Abdul Rahim, 2005 (3) CTC 321, any pleading filed before 1.7.2002 would not be governed by the Amendment Act and the pleading is to be decided as per law, as it stood prior to 1.7.2002.