R. SENTHILKUMAR Vs. C. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant, against the order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode, in I.A. No. 604 of 2012 in O.S. No. 82 of 2009, in and by which, the said I.A. filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, for amendment of the plaint, was allowed with costs.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that the trial Court, without application of mind, passed an erroneous order allowing the application filed for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the suit was filed for mandatory injunction and the petitioner/defendant has filed his written statement on 10.08.2009 by disputing the title of the respondent/plaintiff and also the maintainability of the suit. The learned counsel also submitted that the said amendment application has been filed only after the examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and further, without assigning any reason, the amendment application has been filed. It is also submitted that the trial Court has failed to note that the amendment is totally time barred, because the respondent/plaintiff is not having limitation for filing a fresh suit in respect of the relief sought to be included by way of amendment and therefore, time barred amendment is devoid of merits. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the order of the trial Court may be set aside and the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed.

(3.) In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : 2015 (6) CTC 562 [L.C. Hanumanthappa v/s. H.B. Shivakumar], wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 14 and 29, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: - -