RAJENDRAN Vs. PARVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.201 of 2010 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam and in the suit, the plaintiff / respondent herein sought for permanent injunction, etc. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No.396 of 2014, seeking rectification of mistake in the plaint schedule by way of amendment by incorporating "E,F,G,H lane alone" instead of "including lane" and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court. Challenging the said order, the 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.201 of 2010 on the 1st Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam for permanent injunction and after commencement of trial, the plaintiff, being already aware of the fact that the suit property given by her was wrong and having kept quiet for several years, has now come up with the plea of wrong description of the suit schedule property. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said act of the plaintiff is only to drag on the proceedings and nothing else.

(3.) The revision petitioner states 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 him.