S CHELLATHURAI Vs. CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order-dated 10.03.2006, in I.A.No.3 of 2006 in O.S.No.172 of 2004, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.172 of 2004, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, against the respondents herein for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing and forming layout in the suit property and for other reliefs. The respondents herein have filed a detailed written statement, wherein they have disputed the claim of the petitioner and further stated that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It appears that the trial was commenced and proof affidavit was filed by the petitioner and the case was posted for cross-examination of the petitioner by the respondents. At that point of time, the petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application seeking to amend the plaint to add a prayer for declaration, for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction. But, the said Interlocutory Application was dismissed by the lower Court even without numbering the same. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein has filed CRP PD No.535 of 2005, before this Court. By an order dated 25.10.2005, this Court has disposed of the CRP, directing the lower Court to take up the unnumbered Interlocutory Application on file and to dispose of the same after hearing both parties. In pursuant to the said direction, Interlocutory Application was numbered as I.A.No.3 of 2004. In the said I.A., the first respondent has filed a counter and resisted the matter. After hearing both parties, the learned Additional District Munsif by an order-dated 10.03.2006, has dismissed the said application. It is the said order of dismissal, which is under challenge in this civil revision petition.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner is guilty of laches as he was not diligent to file an application for amendment before commencement of trial as required under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.