Madras High Court
Arumugam vs Vellaian on 28 April, 2015
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.04.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1453 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2009 & 1 of 2014
1.Arumugam
2.Ganesan
3.Packiam
4.Murugan
5.Veerakumar @ Karaiyalar
6.Gurusamy ... Petitioners / Respondents / Defendants
-vs-
Vellaian ... Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff
PRAYER
Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order, passed in
I.A.No.595 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 2007, on the file of Principal District
Munsif Court, Sankarankoil, dated 24.08.2009.
!For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil
^For Respondent : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham
:ORDER
The respondent originally filed a suit in O.S.No.68 of 2007, before the learned Principal District Munsif, Sankarankoil, against the petitioners, praying for a Judgment and Decree of declaration and injunction. The petitioners entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for trial. P.W.1 was examined in chief. The respondent, at that point of time, filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.595 of 2009 for amendment of plaint to incorporate a new prayer for mandatory injunction.
2. According to the respondent, on 19 July, 2008, the petitioners destroyed the Vaikal and as such he is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction. The interlocutory application was opposed by the petitioners. The learned Trial Judge allowed the interlocutory application. The order, dated 24 August, 2009 is under challenge in this civil revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that by amending the suit, the respondent is making a claim in respect of a totally different property. According to the learned counsel, the respondent has no right, title or interest over the suit property as indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application in I.A.No.595 of 2009.
4. I have also heard the learned counsel for respondent.
5. The interlocutory application in I.A.No.595 of 2009 was filed even before the cross-examination of P.W.1. The respondent has stated that during the currency of the suit, the petitioners destroyed the Vaikkal. The question as to whether the respondent is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction is essentially an issue to be decided by the learned Trial Judge on the basis of pleadings and evidence. I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge was perfectly correct in allowing the amendment.
6. In the result, the order, dated 24 August, 2009, in I.A.No.595 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 2007, is confirmed. The learned Trial Judge is directed to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to file additional written statement in view of the amendment made to the plaint.
7. In the upshot, I allow the civil revision petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To The Principal District Munsif, Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil.