KALAVATHI Vs. CHITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the order in I.A.No.2 of 1997 in O.S.No.1434 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Dindugul, the plaintiff has filed the present revision. He has filed I.A.No.2 of 1997 for amendment of the plaint. By the impugned order dated 18.1.1997, the learned District Munsif dismissed the said petition, against which the petitioner has filed the present revision.

(2.) ORIGINALLY the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.1434 of 1990 praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from constructing any lavatory in the suit property. The said suit was filed in the year 1990. It is seen that in the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant on 1.11.1996 he has disputed the claim of the plaintiff. In such circumstance, the petitioner herein has filed the present I.A.No.2 of 1997 in the said suit for amendment of the plaint, namely, instead of the prayer for permanent injunction, she sought for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The said application was filed on 20.12.1996. Since the said application was resisted, I have carefully perused the plaint, present petition for amendment, affidavit the counter-affidavits filed by both parties. It is true that when the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1990, he has prayed only for bare injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that after filing the written statement, in view of the averments in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement, she has to seek necessary amendment and include the prayer for declaration. The written statement was filed on 1.11.1996 and within a period of two months the petitioner has filed the present petition for amendment. Hence, the same cannot be rejected on the ground that the same is belated.