Selvaraj vs Kurshat

M. Venugopal, J.—The revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present civil revision petition as against the order dated

29.09.2005 in I.A. No. 207 of 2005 in O.S. No. 1490 of 1997, passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif, Trichirappalli, in dismissing

the application filed by the petitioner praying for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The trial Court while passing the orders in I.A. No. 207 of 2005 has observed that the application for amendment of plaint has been filed

belatedly and that the cause of action has arisen seven years ago and further that the case has been posted in the list in the year 2005 and

resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.

According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, the order of the trial Court in dismissing the I.A. No. 207 of 2005 is not

proper in the eye of law and that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that the revision petitioner/plaintiff has been evicted forcefully by the

respondent/defendant and moreover, the amendment will not change or alter the nature and character of the suit filed by the revision

petitioner/plaintiff and that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the matters in issue in a proper perspective manner and therefore, prays for

allowing the Civil Revision Petition to prevent aberration of justice.

This Court pertinently points out that the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent/defendant praying for the relief of

permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men, servants or agents etc. from in any way attempting to evict the plaintiff from the suit

property other than due process of law or in any manner whatsoever. Admittedly, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the

cause of action for filing the suit has arisen when he has gone to pay the rent in the month of October'' 1997 and later on and from, when the

money order for the rent has been sent by the plaintiff to the defendant and on from 12.11.1997, the respondent/defendant along with five rowdy

elements has come to the suit property and threatened the revision petitioner/plaintiff to vacate the suit property and every day thereafter, such

threat made by the defendant still continues at the suit property namely, No. 15, Madurai Road, Trichirappalli.

When the main suit has been posted in the list for trial by the trial Court, at that point of time, I.A. No. 207 of 2005 has been projected by the

revision petitioner/plaintiff praying permission of the Court to amend the plaint. Certainly, I.A. No. 207 of 2005 has been filed with an inordinate

delay and no tangible or proper reasons have been assigned by the revision petitioner for the said delay in filing the amendment application.

Added further, when the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff submits that the respondent/defendant has dispossessed the revision

petitioner/plaintiff on 04.12.1997, then this Court is of the view that filing of I.A. No. 207 of 2005 will not enure to the benefit of the revision

petitioner/plaintiff and the said application cannot be entertained by a Court of law after long lapse of time.

It is axiomatic fact that the litigant seeking amendment of the pleadings in law is required to assign cogent and convincing reasons for bringing

about the same. No wonder, the power of amendment is to be carefully exercised by a Court of law in all circumstances of each individual case, in

the considered opinion of this Court.

Suffice it for this Court to point out that no satisfactory reasons have been assigned for filing the said I.A. No. 207 of 2005 by the revision

petitioner/plaintiff and after going through the order in I.A. No. 207 of 2005, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the trial Court in

dismissing the application cannot be found fault with in any manner and consequently, this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the present

Civil Revision Petition cannot be entertained by this Court and resultantly, the same has to be dismissed in furtherance of substantial cause of

justice.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the order dated 29.09.2005

in I.A. No. 207 of 2005 in O.S. No. 1490 of 1997, passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif, Trichirappalli, is affirmed for the reasons

mentioned in this revision. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.