Dave Jeyaselvan vs M.P. Ponraj

M. Duraiswamy, J.

Challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 1983 of 2015 in O.S. No. 5734 of 2013 on the file of VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, the plaintiff filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 5734 of 2013 for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from dispossessing him from the suit property, except under due process of law.

According to the petitioner/plaintiff, he is the son-in-law of the respondent/defendant and that, he was permitted to occupy the suit property.

In the plaint, filed in the suit, the plaintiff has stated that he constructed a superstructure in the suit property in the year 1995, out of his own money.

It is the case of the plaintiff that the respondent/defendant, his father-in-law, who is the owner of the property, is trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and therefore, he has filed the suit. The respondent/defendant filed his written statement and is contesting the suit.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 1983 of 2014, under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, to amend the plaint, incorporating a contrary stand, which was not taken in the original plaint.

By way of an amendment, the plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint, by stating that he is in possession of the first and second floor of the suit property and that, he spent Rs. 50,00,000/- for constructing the superstructure. Further, by way of an amendment, the plaintiff seeks to delete paragraphs 7, 9, 10 and a portion in paragraph-19 of the plaint.

The case put up by the plaintiff is now contrary to the original pleadings, since the plaintiff is trying to plead a new case, contrary to the original plaint. The trial court dismissed the application.

That apart, in order to establish that the plaintiff had spent Rs. 50,00,000/- for construction of the superstructure, he has not proved the said averment, by any evidence. Though the averments, stating in the amendment application, need not be proved, by adducing oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiff should establish the prima-facie case with regard to the proposed amendment.

In the case on hand, in respect of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff failed to establish his case by any acceptable evidence. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.

In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court in I.A. No. 1983 of 2015 in O.S. No. 5734 of 2013 and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.