MEENA Vs. RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/respondent/defendant has filed thecivil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 8. 8. 2008 in I. A. No. 11845 of 2008 in O. S. No. 3855 of 2007 passed by VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff praying to amend the plaint.

(2.) THE trial Court while passing orders in I. A. No. 11845 of 2008 in O. S. No. 3855 of 2007 has inter alia opined that in the main suit, the evidence has not commenced and further that an objection to the Commissioner's report has not been filed by the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant and has resultantly allowed the amendment application without costs.

(3.) IN I. A. No. 11845 of 2008 in O. S. No. 3855 of 2007, the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has sought for permission of the trial Court to amend certain paragraphs of the original plaint which is more fully and particularly described in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the said application. A detailed counter has been filed by the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant inter alia to the effect that ' a) From trial Court to Hon'ble High Court, Madras, it has been held that there is no vacant side beyond the plaintiff's property southern side wall;b) as per amendment Act of CPC no amendment will be allowed after commencement of trial;and c) The relief of mandatory injunction is clearly barred by the relevant provision of law of limitation. '