Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 22.01.2008 passed by the learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam in I.A.No.928 of 2006 in O.S.No.324 of 2000, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. A summarization and summation of the relevant facts, as stood exposited from the records could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The revision petitioner/plaintiff herein filed the suit for permanent injunction relating to an immovable property; during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner felt the necessity of including a prayer for declaration of her title over the suit property and accordingly I.A.No.928 of 2006 was filed. However, the said I.A was dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that the defendants are disputing the title in the injunction suit and if the prayer for declaratory relief is added, it would not amount to changing the nature of the suit or cause of action and in fact in would help for a just adjudication. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would invite the attention of this Court to the laches committed by the plaintiff in prosecuting the matter. The suit was filed in the year 2000; whereas I.A was filed in the year 2006 and that too, after commencement of trial of the suit. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the revision petition. 6. I would like to re-collect and call-up the trite or common or garden principle of law that even in an injunction suit, incidentally, the court could go into the title aspect as it is once again a well-known proposition that possession follows title. As such, in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff can prove prima facie the title also. However, glaringly, there are laches to wit several years, ie., half a decade elapsed, for which, cost could be awarded so that it would amount to the petitioner compensating the injury caused to the defendants. 7. As such, in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff can prove prima facie the title also. However, glaringly, there are laches to wit several years, ie., half a decade elapsed, for which, cost could be awarded so that it would amount to the petitioner compensating the injury caused to the defendants. 7. Hence, in this view of the matter, I would like to allow the civil revision petition subject to payment of cost of a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) by the petitioner to the defendants within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly the order of the lower Court is set aside and the I.A.is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.