Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3187 (MAD)

A. Velpandi v. Annadurai

2014-09-09

V.M.VELUMANI

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff. Whereas the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.96 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondent with regard to the property in Survey No.87/2. The respondent filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Based on the pleadings, necessary issues were framed and the suit was posted for trial. The petitioner filed proof affidavit and was examined as P.W.1 and the suit was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.235 of 2013 for amendment of plaint to include another property. According to the petitioner, the petitioner gave instructions to his previous counsel to file a suit against both properties but his counsel filed a suit only against one property. According to the petitioner, he came to know the fact that the suit was not filed against the other property. Only when he filed the proof affidavit, when he enquired his previous counsel, he informed that by mistake, the other property was not included in the plaint. The petitioner has stated that unless the petition is allowed to include the other property, he would be put to irreparable hardship. 2. The respondent in his counter affidavit, denied all the averments made in the affidavit. The respondent has stated that it is the petitioner who is trying to encroach the property of the respondent and trying to remove the boundary stones which was prevented by him with the help of the Revenue officials. Even in respect of the property mentioned in the plaint, he has denied the claim of the petitioner. He has stated that he filed a detailed written statement denying all the allegations putting forth his case. The present petition is belated one and devoid of merits and prayed for dismissal. 3. The learned Judge considering the pleadings, judgments and arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, dismissed the application in I.A.No.235 of 2013. Against the order of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. I have perused the materials on record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has filed the suit for judgment and decree with regard to a particular property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. Against the order of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. I have perused the materials on record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has filed the suit for judgment and decree with regard to a particular property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The respondent has filed detailed written statement denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. The trial commenced and the petitioner was also examined as P.W.1 in chief. At the stage when the suit was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner has filed the present application for amendment to include the another property in the suit for injunction is devoid of merits. The reason given by the petitioner that he gave instructions to his previous counsel to file suit against both the properties but he filed the suit with regard to only one property is not acceptable one. The petitioner ought to have verified the plaint before filing it. The present application is only an after-thought and has been filed only to drag on the proceedings. The learned Judge has considered all the materials and judgment relied on by the petitioner and by proper and perspective, exercised his power and dismissed the application. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with order dated 24.06.2014 passed in I.A.No.235 of 2013 in O.S.No.96 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.