GOPAL MURALIDHARAN Vs. M SWETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against allowing the I. A. 9958 of 2000 by which the learned Trial Judge permitted the Plaintiff, respondent herein to amend Paragraph 10 of the averments stated in the Plaint.

(2.) ORIGINALLY the suit was filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner selling, alienating, encumbering or otherwise dealing with the A Schedule property and also restraining them from demolishing the building at the A Schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the suit was filed believing that the Schedule A property belongs to the first defendant's father. But after filing of the suit the plaintiff applied for a certified copy of the sale deed in Document No. 430 of 1971 in respect of the said property and has now come to know that the said property belongs to the plaintiff's grand mother late G. Subbulakshmi. It is only due to inadvertence and mistake of fact the plaintiff has stated in the plaint as if the property belongs to the plaintiff's grand father late Gopal. Therefore, it is essential and necessary to amend Paragraph 10 of the Plaint.

(3.) THE learned Trial Judge allowed the said application. In fact when the matter was called on that day, there was no representation in the morning and after pausing of the matter by 3. 40 pm. , again the matter was taken up and again there was no representation and therefore the application was allowed.