Vairamuthu, v. Vanadevi,

ORDER The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.179 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam. The suit has been filed by the first respondent in the year 2019 for bare injunction to restrain the petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

¶2The second defendant in O.S.No.179 of 2019 had filed a written statement, wherein, it has been stated that the suit schedule properties were sold by respondent's husband, namely, Mayakrishnan, by sale deed, dated 08.05.2014 in Document No.2369 of 2014 and passage by another Document No.2370 of 2014. Pursuant to the above, the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.179 of 2019 filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C to amend the plaint to include Paragraph 6 (A) and for certain reliefs to declare sale deed in Document Nos.2369 of 2014 and 2131 of 2019 in the name of the petitioners herein not to bind the respondent. The Trial Court modified the application with the following observations: "7.

vdNt

kDjhuh;/thjpapd;

tof;fpy; kDjhuh;/thjpahy; jdJ mgpltpl;by; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s fpiua

gj;jpuq;fs;

rk;ge;jg;gl;l

rq;fjpfs; kDjhuh;/thjpf;F ,e;j tof;F jhf;fy; nra;j gpwF njhpate;jjhf mwpaKbtjhy; kDjhuh;/thjpahy; ,e;j tof;F jhf;fy; nra;j fhyj;jpNyNa Nkw;fz;l fpiua gj;jpuq;fs; rk;ge;jkhf ghpfhuq;fs; Nfhutpy;iy vd;W mwpaKbtjhy;

kDjhuh;/thjpapd;

kDit mDkjpf;fyhk; vd;W ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; Kbtpw;F tUfpwJ.

8.kw;wgb

kDjhuh;/thjpapd;

kDtpid mDkjpg;gjhy; kDjhuh;/thjpapd; tof;fpy; Gjpa tof;F%yk;

vJTk;

vOtjw;fhd

tha;g;G vJTk; ,y;iy vd;W ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; Kbtpw;F tUfpwJ.

9.NkNy

tpthpf;fg;gl;Ls;s

rq;fjpfspd; mbg;gilapy; kDjhuh; kDtpid mDkjpg;gJ ePjpf;Ffe;jjhf ,Uf;Fk; vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; KbT fhz;fpwJ.

10.Kbthf kDjhuh; kDtpy; fz;l tpgug;gb gpuhjpy;

jpUj;jk;

nra;a

mDkjp toq;fp ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jhy; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

11.nryT njhif ,y;iy."

3.The petitioner is aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order passed by the trial Court on 03.02.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in allowing the application filed for amendment of the plaint. The petitioners herein appears to be subsequent purchaser of the land from the respondent.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions of the Court to state that the application filed for amending the plaint by substituting the prayer by inviting the scope of the relief has not have been allowed inasmuch as amendment infringes on the rights confer under the Limitation Act.

(a) P.B.Ramjee and others Vs P.B.Lakshmanaswamy Naidu and others reported in 1996 (1) CTC 661

(b)Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu Vs Sita Ram Saraugi and others reported in (2007 4 MLJ 378 (SC)

(c) M.D.Pasupathy Lakshmanan Vs Padmavathy and others reported in 2021 5 L.W. 913

(d) Asian Hotels (North) Limited Vs Alok Kumar Lodha and others reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 585.

¶5I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6The respondent herein has filed a suit for bare injunction originally and has also filed an application for amending the averments in the plaint and also filed the suit sought for amendment of the relief from bare injunction to declaration. The Court has held that the plaintiff has to take steps to amend the plaint for relief of declaration. The application for amending the cause title have been filed just after the written statement was filed by the second petitioner.

¶7Therefore, in my view, order passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference. However, issue relating to the limitation can be canvassed and it is open for the petitioners to file appropriate application to direct the trial Court to frame preliminary issue as to whether the prayer for declaration can be entertained in the light of the limitation.

¶8In my view, the civil revision petition filed by the petitioners questioning the order passed by the trial Court is misconceived and without merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs.

24.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To

1.The Additional District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam.

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN

,J.

SN

24.03.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.03.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P(MD) No.3648 of 2023 1.Vairamuthu 2.Muthupandi ...Petitioners/Respondents/ Defendants Vs. Vanadevi ... Respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 03.02.2023 passed in I.A No.01 of 2022 in O.S No.179 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vallinayagam For Respondent : No Appearance