MUTHUVEL Vs. MARIA SHOPANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.78 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur and in the suit, the plaintiff / respondent herein sought for recovery of vacant possession by evicting the defendants from the suit schedule property. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No.242 of 2014, seeking to mention the date of encroachment by the defendants as 05.01.2010, which was omitted to be mentioned, while drafting the plaint and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court. Challenging the said order, the defendants / petitioners herein are before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that the plaintiff had already filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2010 against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction, which ended in dismissal against the plaintiff on 19.04.2011. While so, the plaintiff has filed yet another suit in O.S.No.78 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur for recovery of possession and after completion of examination of witnesses, the suit is pending for argument and at that juncture, the plaintiff, being already aware of the fact that no date was mentioned and having kept quiet for years together, has now come up with such a plea. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said act of the plaintiff is only to drag on the proceedings and nothing else.

(3.) The revision petitioners state that it is a settled law that no petition for amendment shall be entertained after commencement of the trial, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not raise the matter before commencement of trial and in this case, the plaintiff did not aver anything about the due diligence taken by her and therefore, the application for amendment cannot be allowed to be carried out.