Madras High Court
S.Balaji vs Govindasamy Reddy on 15 December, 2016
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 15.12.2016 Coram The Honourable MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA C.R.P.PD.No.206 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 S.Balaji ... Petitioner vs Govindasamy Reddy ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of dismissal in I.A.No.408 of 2013 in O.S.No.84 of 2003 dated 28.10.2013 passed by the learned District Munsif Court at Sholinghur. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ravi For Respondent : Mr.N.Damodaran ORDER
The plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dismissing an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C, has filed this Civil Revision Petition.
2. The suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the 'B' schedule property as the way for the 'A' schedule property. While so, after the Commissioner and the land Surveyor measured the property and filed the report, the plaintiff has stated that the 'B' schedule property falls between the Survey No.1009, whereas in the plaint, it has been stated as Survey No.1010. Hence, the amendment is sought for. The said amendment was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Sholinghur on the ground that it is changing the nature of the suit and the amendment is post trial one.
3. The suit is of the year 2013, which is now kept pending for more than a decade, when the trial has commenced, this amendment application is filed by the plaintiff. The said amendment is also subsequent to the filing of the report of the Commissioner. It is trite law that amendment of pleadings is not permissible after the commencement of trial. Unless the plaintiff establishes that in spite of due diligence, he could not bring the amendment before the commencement of the trial. The proposed amendment at the stage of trial cannot be allowed.
4. The amendment during the pendency of the trial based on the report of the Commissioner, which has been filed long back only goes to show that the plaintiff is trying to drag on the proceedings in spite of the fact that the suit is of vintage 2003. The amendment sought for is not subsequent to the plaint, but, it is pursuant to the report of the Commissioner and if allowed, would give rise to fresh or additional relief. Therefore, it was rightly dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Sholinghur and there is no infirmity or material irregularity in the same.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Considering the age of the suit, the learned District Munsif, Sholinghur is directed to dispose of the same on or before 28.02.2017. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
srn 15.12.2016 Index :Yes Internet:Yes To The District Munsif Sholinghur PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J srn C.R.P.PD.No.206 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 15.12.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in