SALUKA BEEVI Vs. RAJAMANI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been preferred against the order and decretal order dated 18.1.2005 passed in I.A. No. 967 of 2004 in O.S. No. 62 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, whereby the Court below had permitted the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint under Order 6Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as prayed for.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants would contend that the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioners herein, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except under due process of law. But subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff vacated the premises since the rented premises was demolished by the Revenue Authorities and as such the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would state that as on the date of filing of the amendment petition, the respondent/plaintiff was not a tenant in occupation of the suit property.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that the respondent/plaintiff has introduced a new prayer with regard to the pathway, which would create a new cause of action, for which, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that as the respondent/plaintiff was dispossessed by the petitioners, it was necessitated to incorporate the prayer for recovery of possession by way of amendment. Further, according to the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the other side had attempted to put up a wall, so as to prevent access to the property for which the respondent/plaintiff had sought necessary amendment.