M THANKRAJ Vs. M PAUL RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 25.02.2009 in I.A. No. 673 of 2008 in O.S. No. 217 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. praying to amend the plaint for the relief of mandatory injunction.

(2.) The trial court, while passing orders in I.A. No. 673 of 2008 in O.S. No. 217 of 2007, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to remove the same by way of mandatory injunction, provided that he is able to establish his right over the suit property. If the amendment is not allowed, multiplicity of the proceedings would arise, which is not desirable and resultantly, allowed the application without costs.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, the trial court's order passed in I.A. No. 673 of 2008 in O.S. No. 217 of 2007 suffers from material irregularities and that the application praying for amendment of plaint, ought to have been dismissed by the trial court, holding that the same is a belated one and further, the trial court has ignored the fact that the amendments sought for will change the character of the suit and moreover, the cause of action also will change and that the trial court has not taken into account an another fact that the revision petitioner/defendant has put up construction in the property, which he has obtained under partition deed, to which, the respondent/plaintiff is a party and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.