PENTECOSTAL EVANGELICAL TRUST Vs. NAR SESAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The revision petitioner / plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.256 of 2009 for declaration that the suit item Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute properties of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. In the year 2017, the revision petitioner / plaintiff had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.460 of 2017 in O.S.No.256 of 2009 seeking to amend plaint by adding one more property, which was omitted to be mentioned in the suit schedule properties. After hearing both sides, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the revision petitioner / plaintiff has produced only a latest document in respect of the property, which sought to be included and that if the said application is allowed, that will change the nature of the suit. Challenging the said order, the revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed the present civil revision petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / plaintiff would submit that the revision petitioner / plaintiff claimed title in respect of the existing suit schedule property as well as the property sought to be included only on the basis of the sale deed, dated 14.12.1995, which has already been marked as document No.4 in the plaint and the omission of the property, which sought to be included in the plaint schedule property, came to be noticed only when the commissioner visited the property and hence, immediately, before the advocate commissioner's report, the said application has been filed seeking to amend the plaint. He would further submit that as the revision petitioner's claim is based on the very same sale deed, dated 14.12.1995, which has been marked as document No.4 in the plaint and as the property, which sought to be included, is only a subsequent sub-division made in the suit property, the nature of the suit will not be affected by inclusion of the said property. Thus, he prayed to set aside the order impugned in this petition and to allow the application for amendment.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in unison submitted that the suit has been filed in the year 2009 and after commencement of the trial, the revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed the amendment petition in the year 2017 and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. He would further submit that after perusing the records, the trial Court has rightly held that the property, which sought to be included, has not been mentioned in the sale deed, dated 14.12.1995 and in Patta No.920, and that except the computer patta, dated 17.03.2017, there is no document produced by the revision petitioner / plaintiff in respect of the property, which sought to be included. He would further submit that as held by the Court below, if the said property is included, the same will change the nature of the suit. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of this civil revision petition.