MANGAIAMMAL Vs. MAHESWARI AMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ambasamuthiram and in the suit, the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction, etc. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.86 of 2015 for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit for the same cause of action and the said application was dismissed, on the ground that it will cause great prejudice to the defendants. Aggrieved by such finding, the revision petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that in addition to the present suit, she also filed yet another suit in O.S.No.80 of 2003 for declaration and injunction, in which a portion of the present suit schedule property is covered, on account of denial of the defendants with regard to her rights over the property. Since the issue involved in both suit is one and the same, she sought to amend the prayer on earlier occasion, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on the objection raised by the defendants. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that subsequent thereto, she also filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the actual extent of area encroached by the defendants, which was also dismissed by the Trial Court.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that based on the rough measurement conducted by her, it came to light that the entire portion is not in possession of the petitioner and therefore, she felt that further continuance of the suit with the same prayer will not help in any way, as the present relief sought is for permanent injunction and in the event of the suit being decreed in favour of the defendants, there would be a possibility for encroachment of the entire property with the help of Police Force by the defendants. Hence, it is stated that it has literally become imperative for the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and in its place, file a yet another suit with suitable prayer. However, the Trial Court, without considering the factual aspects involved in the case, has simply rejected the plea of the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.