MARIAMMAL Vs. PERUMAL AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners / plaintiffs have laid the suit, in O.S.No.160 of 2014, for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) The suit laid by the revision petitioners is being stoutly resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement. Now, according to the revision petitioners, after the closure of their evidence in the matter and when the matter stood adjourned for the cross-examination of D.W.1, it is stated that the respondents, during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, have suggested that the revision petitioners have not taken steps to measure the suit property and that it is only the respondents, who have been enjoying the suit property by putting rubbish and waste materials etc., and therefore, according to the revision petitioners, the Advocate Commissioner, who had inspected the property concerned also found the presence of rubbish and waste materials etc., in the suit property and inasmuch as the respondents have taken a plea that it is only they, who had done the above said acts by encroaching into the suit property, according to the revision petitioners, they had become necessitated to amend the plaint for the relief of possession after removing the encroachments made by the respondents in the suit property and hence, sought for necessary amendment of the plaint by filing I.A.No.429 of 2016.

(3.) The said application was resisted by the respondents contending that they had been enjoying the suit property for several years and even in the written statement filed in the year 2014, they have clearly averred in Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 that they had been enjoying the suit property by putting rubbish and waste materials etc., and the revision petitioners have not taken any steps to retrieve the suit property and also lost the title to the suit property by the lapse of time and in such view of the matter, according to them, very belatedly, particularly, after the evidence of the parties had been adduced at a major level, the present attempt on the part of the revision petitioners to amend the plaint is nothing but an introduction of the new pleas and cause of action in the plaint and the said cause of action also being found to be barred by limitation, the amendment application should not be entertained and prayed for dismissal of the same.