T KASAMMAL Vs. SEENIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed as against the order rejecting the amendment petition filed by the revision petitioner / plaintiff seeking to amend the averments in I.A.No.307 of 2014 and in the plaint.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner / plaintiff, on 25.04.1952 her father - Mayathevar had executed a lease deed for Rs.500/- in favour of one Thavasi Thevar and on 05.03.1958 the said Thavasi Thevar, had made over the lease deed in favour of the 1st respondent / 1st defendant and the 1st respondent / 1st defendant, without any valid title, sold the suit property in favour of the defendants 3 to 11 and therefore, she has filed the suit in O.S.No.162 of 2010 for redemption of the mortgage executed by her father - Mayathevar in favour of one Thavasi Thevar and the subsequent made over of the same in favour of the 1st defendant, and for recovery of possession and also for declaration of the sale deed executed by the defendants 3 to 11 in respect of the suit properties as null and void. The respondents / defendants remained ex parte. While so, seeking to delete certain averments and substitute the petition mentioned averments in certain paragraphs of the plaint, the revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed I.A.No.307 of 2014 and the same was allowed by the trial Court. Subsequently, the revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed I.A.No.467 of 2016 seeking to amend the averments mentioned in I.A.No.307 of 2014 and also in the plaint. The Court below has dismissed the same holding that the facts stated in the plaint and in the application of amendment are contradictory to each other and the documents have already been marked by examining the petitioner / plaintiff and at this stage, the amendment of plaint sought for by the revision petitioner / plaintiff cannot be granted. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff would submit that due to inadvertence, the petitioner / plaintiff has failed to mention about Ex.A2 in the schedule of plaint and also the fact about the share of the vendor of his father with regard to the said items of properties were not properly described neither in the original plaint nor in the amended plaint and that without describing the same, the petitioner / plaintiff will not be able to satisfy the Court with regard to her right in the suit properties and therefore, she has filed the said application seeking amendment. By relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Padma Vadivel Murugan Vs. Gomathi Kathiresan and others, (2010) 1 LW 668, she would further submit that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / defendants in allowing this petition and as the respondents / defendants remain in ex parte, the Court below could have allowed the said application. But, the Court below has erroneously dismissed the said application and therefore, this Court may set aside the order passed by the Court below and permit the petitioner to amend the plaint by allowing this civil revision petition.