C D VARADHRAJAN Vs. S MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is defendant in O. S. No. 338 of 1999 on the file of the district Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. The respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner putting up construction in the specified area and for a mandatory direction to the defendant to demolish the already constructed wall and pillars in the suit property. After the commencement of trial i. e. , while the suit was at part heard stage, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 and under Section 151 of C. P. C to amend the plaint to intro-duce certain particulars in the Schedule as regards Survey Numbers.

(2.) (I) In the affidavit filed by these respondents it is alleged that while the first respondent was in the box, he was cross examined by the defendant's Counsel to the effect that the Survey Numbers of the house property purchased by him and his wife were not furnished in the plaint. If the Survey Numbers are given in the Schedule, it would be easy for determination. Hence, the amendment application may be allowed. 2. (ii) Particulars of Amendment: in the suit schedule of property add the following after the words "gandhi Street (Old mettu Street] Town Survey Number 772/2, 772/1 and 772/1a, 772/1e, and also in the plaint sketch attached in the Eastern side t. S. No. 772/2, on the West of that T. S. No. 772/1, now subdivided as 772/1b and on the Western side of the Sketch T. S. No. 772/ 1a, respectively, and in all I. As. wherever it is necessary.

(3.) IN the Counter filed by this petitioner it is alleged that in the written statement the defendant has clearly mentioned in para 18, that the plaint schedule is not accordance with Order 7, Rule 3 of C. P. C. and that the petitioner have not chosen to amend the plaint at that time and after P. W. 1 was fully cross examined, this petition has been fifed. He himself had admitted during the course of cross examination that plaint schedule does not contain any Survey Number and boundaries. If the amendment petition is allowed, the admission aspects in the cross examination could be nullified and irreparable loss would be caused to the defendant as per Order 6. Rule 17, C. P. C. , the petitioner should show that he could not bring the amendment before the commencement of trial. The proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. A new cause of action would arise. The petition is a belated one. Only to drag on the proceedings the petition is filed and the same is barred by limitation, as per Article 59 of the limitation Act. Hence the petition has to be dismissed.