Madras High Court
Venkatraman vs Indirani on 7 August, 2014
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.08.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
C.R.P. (PD) Nos.4956 and 4957 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
in
CRP (PD) No.4956 of 2011
Venkatraman .. Petitioner in both CRPs
..vs.
1.Indirani
2.Chennappan @ Chinna Appu ...Respondents
in both CRPs
Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 09.06.2011 in I.A.Nos.409 and 487 of 2011 in O.S.No.144 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palacode.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Selvakumar
in both CRPs
For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Anna Gandhi
in both CRPs
C O M M O N O R D E R
The civil revision petitioner is one and the same in both the petitions. He is the plaintiff in O.S.No.144 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palacode. The said suit was filed by him against the respondents herein for declaration to declare the suit pathway as a common pathway and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men or agents from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the suit pathway.
2.During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed two interim applications in I.A.Nos.409 of 2011 and 487 of 2011, seeking for amendment of the plaint. In I.A.No.409 of 2011, the petitioner sought for amendment thereby to delete the word north to south at line 7 of paragraph 6 and to replace the word east to west. It is nothing but the plaintiff wanted to describe the suit pathway as running from east to west instead of north to south as stated originally in the plaint at paragraph No.6.
3.In I.A.No.487 of 2011, the plaintiff wanted to amend the schedule of the plaint to the effect that the suit pathway is running from east to west instead of south to north as stated in the original plaint and accordingly to correct the boundaries of the suit property. The said applications filed by the petitioner was resisted by the respondents herein.
4.The court below passed separate orders dated 09.06.2011 in both the applications, dismissing the amendment petitions by holding that the plaintiff wanted to change and alter the basic structure of the suit and introduce a new cause of action. The court below has also found that the amendment petitions were filed belatedly.
5.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.
6.The petitioner as the plaintiff filed the above said suit for declaration and injunction in respect of a pathway claimed to be a common pathway. The suit pathway was described in the plaint originally filed as running from north to south. Accordingly, the boundaries of the suit pathway was described in the plaint schedule. Later, the plaintiff/petitioner came to know that the said description was not correct and it was wrongly typed as running from north to south instead of east to west and therefore, he filed the above two petitions seeking for amendment. No doubt, these two petitions were filed after examination of P.W.1. But the fact remains that those amendment petitions were filed before the completion of trial.
7.Considering the nature of the suit filed against the respondents and the relief sought for therein and considering the nature of amendment sought to be made in the plaint as has been discussed supra, I am of the view that such amendments are not altering the nature of the suit in any way as found by the court below. It is also not introducing any new cause of action. After all, the petitioner wanted to place the correct description of the suit property in which the suit pathway is running with its specific boundaries. Such amendment would, in fact help the court to arrive at a finding as to whether the claim made by the petitioner/plaintiff in the said suit against the defendants/respondents is justifiable or not. As it is not giving any new cause of action, the court below was not justified in rejecting the applications. Accordingly, the order of the court below passed in I.A.Nos.409 of 2011 and 487 of 2011 are set aside and consequently, those amendment petitions are allowed. Pursuant to the amendments made by the plaintiff, the respondents/defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement if any and consequently, the plaintiff is also entitled to recall and reopen the examination of P.W.1. The defendants also are entitled to cross-examine him further. Since the suit is of the year 2007, the trial court is directed to take up the suit and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.08.2014 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No vri K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J. vri To The District Munsif Court, Palacode. PRE DELIVERY COMMON ORDER IN CRP(PD) Nos.4956 and 4957 of 2011 07.08.2014