JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and for costs. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, on 19.08.1999, the petitioner herein who is the defendant in the suit, induced his daughter, son-in-law, Padmavathy and also Maha to trespass into the suit property and they have also laid foundation and the same was reported to the police. The plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No.561 of 1999 against the defendant for contempt.
(2.). It is also stated that the defendant put up a bathroom and in order to prove the act committed by the defendant, the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner who had inspected the suit property and found out that the suit survey number was wrongly given and the correct suit survey number is 582/28 and as the defendant put up bath room, latrine, septic tank, the plaintiff filed an application to amend the plaint. These are the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the plaintiff to amend the plaint.
(3.). The defendant resisted the said petition on the ground that the plaintiff is trying to alter the cause of action and introduce new and inconsistent cause of action which is time barred. It is also stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to amend the plaint and he is at liberty to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.