ARULPRAKASH Vs. RATHINASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this civil revision is to the order of the learned District Munsif, Tirumangalam made in I. A. No. 1539 of 2012 in O. S. No. 198 of 2004 seeking amendment of plaint.

(2.) The suit in O. S. No. 809 of 1994 (renumbered as 198 of 2004) was filed by the respondents herein seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Claiming that the defendants/petitioners herein had trespassed into the said property and put up construction in the year of 2010, the plaintiffs sought for an amendment of plaint to include the relief of recovery of possession. The said application was resisted by the petitioners contending that they are in possession of the property for well over the statutory period and the relief of recovery of possession is barred by limitation.

(3.) The learned District Munsif, who heard the application, concluded that the cause of action for recovery of possession, as per the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application for amendment, having arisen in the year 2010, the prayer for amendment cannot be said to be ex-facie barred by limitation. The learned District Munsif also concluded that the question of limitation will have to be gone into only at the time of trial and the power to reject the amendment on the ground of limitation is restricted to cases, where the relief sought for by way of amendment is ex-facie barred by limitation. On the above conclusions, the learned District Munsif allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come up with the above civil revision petition.