- (1.)THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 505/88 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur. The plaintiff, who has lost the suit before the trial Court has preferred A. S. No. 23/2002 against the decree and Judgment in O. S. No. 505/1988, before the Sub-Court, Hosur. While the appeal was pending, the appellant/plaintiff had filed I. A. No. 49/2003 under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the pleadings. The learned Sub-Judge, after considering the contentions of both the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the Defendants has passed a well considered order dismissing the I. A. No. 49/2003 on the ground that after the amendment of CPC under Act 22/02, the petition for amendment is not maintainable and if the amendment is allowed that will change the nature of the case and introduce a new cause of action. The said order is being challenged before this Court in Revision.
(2.)ACCORDING to the plaintiff, in respect of the Suit property S. No. 114 there was an oral partition between the predecessor's in title and the 1st Defendant had purchased a portion of the property in S. No. 114 and the partition was effected among four brothers, namely, Chinnanna, Rangappa and Narayanappa and one Munusamy. Except Munusamy other three brothers got major portion in S. No. 114 towards their respective shares. Narayanappa got a separate patta under patta No. 343 for S. No. 114/1 measuring Hec. 0. 44. 0 and chinnanna and Rangappa got separate patta under patta No. 842 in S. No. 114/3 measuring Hect. 0. 57. 0. Rangappa alone was in exclusive possession in S. No. 114/2 patta No. 916 measuring Hect. 0. 41. 0. According to the plaintiff, Narayanappa and Munusami, son of Ramiaha along with one Muniappa son of Achappa got joint patta because the said Muniappa son of Achappa purchased some portion in S. No. 114 so for the portions purchased by 1st efendant, he did not got any patta, whereas Chinnanna, Rangappa, Narayanappa and Munusami got their patta. So, according to the plaintiff, the sale by Rangappa infavour of the plaintiff is valid, atleast to the extent of half share in S. No. 114/3, because the joint patta stands in the names of Chinnanna and Rangappa. This was one of the amendment sought for in the said petition (I. A. No. 49/2003 ).
(3.)THE learned Sub-Judge, after going through the rival contentions of the parties has observed in his order that the suit is of the year 1988 and the plaintiff/petitioner had filed this petition under Order 6 Rule 17 in the year 2003 i. e. after a lapse of 15 years and if this amendment is allowed that will cause hardship to the Defendants, who are in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years and that if the amendment sought for is allowed, that will hit the Article 3, 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act.