BALARAMAN Vs. DEVAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 18.02.2005 passed by the learned District Munsif, Madurantakam in I.A.No.1914 of 2004 in O.S.No,337 of 2004. Heard both sides.

(2.) THE pith and marrow, the gist and kernel of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: THE revision petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No,337 of 2004 seeking permanent injunction as against the defendant. It so happened, the defendant in the said suit, also filed one other suit in O.S.No,364 of 2004, which is one for declaration and injunction. THE defendant in O.S.No,337 of 2004 viz., the respondent herein filed an I.A and got the Commissioner appointed to visit the suit property and to submit his report. On such filing of report, the revision petitioner herein filed I.A.No.1914 of 2004 for getting the plaint amended so as to incorporate the prayer for recovery of possession to an extent of 9 inches of land out of the two feet width area described in the "B" schedule of the plaint. THE lower Court dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the present civil revision petition has been focussed on various grounds among others.

(3.) IN this factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that normally a suit for injunction should not be allowed to be converted into one for possession in view of the obvious reason that a litigant cannot gamble in litigation and he cannot also take chances with the Court. But here, ex facie and prima facie, it is clear that only after the Commissioner submitted his report, the revision petitioner came to know about such encroachment. Earlier to it, he was under the misconception that the entire plaint B Scheduled property was in his possession and that the respondent herein was attempting to trespass in to the said property.