D VINAYAGAM Vs. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No,5563 of 2000 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner herein. THE suit was filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner against the defendants/respondents. THE said suit was dismissed on merits and the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal before the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.P.No,2052 of 2008 in A.S.No,464 of 2007. In the appeal, the plaintiff/revision petitioner has filed an application for the receipt of additional documents, which was allowed. THEreafter, the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein filed an application under Order 6 of Rule 17 C.P.C seeking to amend the plaint for mentioning the survey number in the schedule and also to incorporate certain pleadings in the body of the plaint. In the affidavit, he has alleged that after enquiry with other occupants of the properties, he came to know certain facts and he produced some documents listed C to F in the enclosed application for additional evidence. It is stated that there was a genuine mistake in stating the T.S.Numbers and Block No,3 and the mistake had occurred while drafting the plaint by the advocate. He states that he is an illiterate and he does not know the intricacies involved in conducting cases, and he had not been properly advised by his previous counsel. THE particulars of amendments sought for are that it has been wrongly mentioned as T.S.No,2 Block No,4, Arumbakkam Village, but it should have been stated as Survey No.1 and Block No,3, Naduvakkarai Village, situated within the Registration Sub-District of Kodambakkam Registry, and Registration district of 'Chennai Central'.

(2.) HOWEVER, it has been stated in the petition that plaintiff's predecessor-in-title lived in the scheduled premises by putting up a fence. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has been enjoying the scheduled premises as his own and the same is hostile to everyone and claims of all including the respondents, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the scheduled property and the defendants are fully aware of the rights of the plaintiff and of the right, title and possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property for over a period of 30 years and the same is hostile to any and every one including the defendants.

(3.) THE respondents have not filed counter before the Court below. However the Appellate Court proceeded to dispose it of on merits. THE Court below held that if the petition for amendment is allowed, the character of the suit as well as the suit property also would be changed, the description sought to be included in the plaint is entirely referring to different property and such amendment would completely change the cause of action and character of suit. As far as the applicability of amendment to CPC is concerned, it cannot be of help to the petitioner to pursue the suit which was filed during 2002, as the amendment of the CPC was introduced in the year 1976. THE present suit was filed in the year 2000 and hence the strict construction of the provision and the object of Order 6 Rule 17 need not be observed, moreover, the plaintiff failed to show that the proposed amendment would in no way alter the character, nature and cause of action in the suit.