ARUL PRIYA ALIAS MARY COLATALIASLATHA Vs. THANGAMMA BENJAMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A.No,580 of 2006 in O.S.No,82 of 2003. Heard both sides.

(2.) THE pith and marrow, the warp and woof of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: THE first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No,82 of 2003 seeking permanent injunction as against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No,580 of 2006 was filed for getting the plaint amended so as to incorporate/add certain amendments. THE lower Court after hearing both the sides, allowed the amendment petition. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the present civil revision petition has been focussed on various grounds among others.

(3.) A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court, to say the least, is far from satisfactory. The lower court in matters of this nature is expected to see as to whether there is any semblance of evidence to exemplify that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant trespassed into the suit property and raised construction. But to that effect, absolutely, there is no shard or shred, iota or miniscule extent of evidence found placed before the lower Court. The affidavit is vague as vagueness could be and it is bereft of the date or dates on which such trespass took place. There is no reference to the effect that the first defendant during the pendency of the suit trespassed into the suit property. If there is any such trespass, naturally, some complaint to police or to some other authorities would have been given. But no such evidence has been placed before the lower Court. The lower Court is expected to see all these facts, in addition to looking for some prima facie evidence that only on a particular date or dates such alleged trespass took place. Without concentrating on these points, if this sort of applications are allowed, then any plaintiff would initially file a suit for injunction and after sensing and perceiving that there is some difficulty in prosecuting the injunction application, they will seek for mandatory injunction and for recovery of possession and such sort of amendment application should not be entertained. Considering the pro et contra, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the lower Court has to be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the lower Court for considering the matter in the light of the observations as found set out supra in my discussion, after hearing both sides and accordingly, the matter shall be dealt with.