IDA Vs. GNANADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order of dismissal made in I.A.No.415 of 2014 in O.S.No.128 of 2010 dated 19.01.2015, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the Petitioners filed the suit in O.S.No.128 of 2010 against the 1st respondent herein before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai for partition and separate possession. When the case was posted for defendants? evidence, the Petitioners filed amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC in I.A.No.415 of 2014 to amend the plaint Para 2 and the schedule of property to include the actual Re-survey numbers.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Revision petitioners that the Petitioners came to know about the Re-survey numbers of their ancestor's property only after the vendees, who were brought on record in the suit and who purchased the ancestor's property from the respondents herein. The Petitioners have collected all the Re-survey numbers of their ancestor's property from the sale deed executed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein and filed the amendment petition. Since all the documents are in the custody of the 1st respondent, the Petitioners are not in a position to mention the correct schedule of properties in the plaint.