Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 57 (MAD)

Alagu Ambalam v. Velpandian

2013-01-03

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 27.09.2011, passed in I.A.No.194 of 2007 in O.S.No.147 of 2005, by the learned District Munsif, Aruppukkottai. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would echo the cri de coeur and heart burns of his clients to the effect that at the belated stage, the plaintiffs, only as an afterthought got the plaint amended so as to get incorporated the prayer for declaration of the suit property as his exclusive property; the lower Court without application of mind simply allowed it, warranting interference in this Civil Revision Petition. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, the suit property is a public street and they have a right to raise walls having the opening facing the said street, over which the respondents/plaintiffs are having no right to get any injunction, but the lower Court did not advert to these facts. 5. A bare and plain perusal of the records would exemplify and demonstrate that in fact, originally, the suit was filed with the following prayers: "TAMIL" (Extracted as such) 6. A mere running of the eye over those averments including the prayer would make anyone to think that the suit was apparently filed for declaration of title. In fact, in matters of this nature, the law enjoins the Court itself to give suitable direction at the earliest point of time to get the plaint amended by necessary prayer for declaration of title. In this case, already the plaintiffs themselves by way of correcting their stand came forward with such application for incorporating the prayer for declaration of title. Therefore, without deciding the title, the question of dividing the right of the rival parties will become a well-neigh impossibility and the discretion exercised by the lower Court in allowing the amendment of the plaint, warrants no interference. However, the lower Court is directed to give due opportunity to the revision petitioners to file additional written statement as per law. 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. 8. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would make an extempore submission that there were laches and the defendants might be given due opportunity to raise such a plea. 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. 8. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would make an extempore submission that there were laches and the defendants might be given due opportunity to raise such a plea. It is open for the defendants to raise all the legal pleas including the plea concerning laches and negligence on the part of the plaintiffs.