ANTHONY Vs. ARUNACHALAPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. The revision is directed against the order in I.A.No.190 of 1994 in O.S.No.160 of 1988 on the file of Sub -Court, Tenkasi dismissing an application for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the suit filed O.S.No.160 of 1988 on the file of the Sub -Court, Tenkasi for declaration that the suit second schedule is a common pathway for both the plaintiffs and the defendants and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner putting up sunshades or steps in the common pathway and also from interfering with plaintiffs use of the common pathway.

(3.) A Commissioner was appointed in I.A.No.579 of 1988 and he was directed to submit a report about the physical features of the properties. The Commissioner has also submitted a report. As the respondents have put up construction, contrary to the interim injunction granted by the trial court, the petitioners though -that it has become necessary for the petitioners to seek a relief of mandatory injunction to remove the construction. Hence they filed I.A.No.190 of 1994 in O.S.No.160 of 1988 on the file of the Sub -Court, Tenkasi under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. The lower court dismissed the petition on the only ground that the petition is belated.