PARAMASIVAM AND OTHERS Vs. SOUNDARARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 402 of 2013 dated 16.2.2017 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi and in the suit, the plaintiff/1st respondent herein sought for partition of ? .. "rd share of the suit schedule property. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application in I.A. No. 880 of 2016, seeking rectification of mistakes in the plaint schedule by way of amendment by incorporating the left out schedule property in the plaint and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court on payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- to be payable by the plaintiff to the defendants and since the defendants refused to accept the cost, the same was deposited in Court. Challenging the said order, the 1st defendant/petitioner herein is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No. 402 of 2013 for partition, whereas his wife had filed a suit in O.S. No. 395 of 2013 for declaration and permanent injunction and both the suits were clubbed and posted for arguments. It is the further case of the petitioner that the property which is sought to be included in the plaint belongs to the 1st defendant and subsequently, the 1st defendant had executed an arrangement deed dated 25.07.2007 in favour of his wife and therefore, the plaintiff has no right or title over the said property.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that the revision petition has been filed only to cause mental agony to him, though the plaintiff is fully aware that the property sought to be included in the self acquired property of the petitioner. Moreover, 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 him.