SUSEELA Vs. RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.142 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District and in the suit, the plaintiff / 1st respondent herein sought for permanent injunction, etc. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No.471 of 2016, seeking rectification of mistake in the relief to read as mandatory injunction, declaration and recovery of possession by way of amendment and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court. Challenging the said order, the defendants 1 to 3 / petitioners herein are before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioners that the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.142 of 2011 before the learned District Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District for permanent injunction and when the case is posted for trial, the plaintiff, having kept quiet for several years, has now come up with the plea of altering the prayer in the suit. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said act of the plaintiff is only to drag on the proceedings and nothing else.

(3.) The revision petitioners state 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 her.