Madras High Court
Mayan vs Gnanasamy (Died) on 18 November, 2019
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1053 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 18.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1053 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
Mayan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Gnanasamy (Died)
2.Periyasamy
3.Muhamed Skkariya
4.Kumar
5.Pappu
6.Arul Xavier
7.Mary
8.Savariammal
9.Stephen .. Respondents
(Respondents 5 to 9 are brought on records as legal heirs
of deceased first respondent vide Court order dated 14.10.2019
made in M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in C.R.P.(MD)No.1053 of 2011 by PTAJ)
Prayer : This Civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code,
to set aside the order dated 31.03.2011 in I.A.No.1814 of 2010 in O.S.No.115 of 2009 on
the file of the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
st
For 1 Respondent : Died
For Respondents 2,3,5 to 8 :Mr.K.Baala Sundaram
For 4th Respondent : Mr.V.Sasikumar
ORDER
The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai, allowing the application in I.A.No.1814 of http://www.judis.nic.in 1/4 C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1053 of 2011 2010 in O.S.No.115 of 2009, which is an application filed by the defendants 1 to 3 seeking to amend the contends of the original written statement filed by them.
2.The facts in brief, which are necessary to dispose of the above civil revision petition are as follows:-
(i)The revision petitioner had filed a suit for the following reliefs:-
“1)23.04.2007-k; Njjp thjp gpujpthjpf;F vOjp gjpe;J nfhLj;j fhisahu;Nfhtpy;
rhu;gjpthsu; mYtfj;jpy; gj;jpu vz;.1119/2007 Mf gjpag;gl;bUf;Fk; gjpT Mtzk; rl;lg;gb nry;yhJ vd tpsk;Gif nra;Jk;>
2)mjd; njhlu;r;rpahf i\ Mtzj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; gpujpthjp ahnjhU cupikAk;> mDgtKk; Nfhu $lhJ vd mtu; kPJ xU epue;ju cWj;Jf; fl;lis gupfhuk;
toq;fpAk;>
3)jhth tof;fpd; nryT njhifia thjpf;F gpujpthjpia nrYj;Jk;gb cj;juT toq;fpAk;>
4),d;Dk; jhth tof;fp;y; r%fk; Nfhu;l;lhu; mtu;fSf;F rupnad Njhd;Wk; ,ju gupfhuq;fs; rfpjk; jPu;g;Gk;> jPu;g;ghizAk; toq;fp cj;jutpl Ntz;bajha; gpuhh;j;jpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
(ii)In the original written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 3, they had contended as follows:-
“2.thjpAk;> rptfq;if khtl;lk;> Gspf;fz;kha; fpuhkk; MNuhf;fpak; kfd; tpy;ypak; NIhrg;uhI; vd;gtupd; 29.03.2007e; Njjpa nghJ mjpfhu gj;jpuj;jpy; mbg;gilapy;> jhth nrhj;jpidAk; ,e;j gpujpthjpAk;> thjpAk; 20.04.2007y; xU fpiua cld;gbf;if vOjpf; nfhz;lgb> KOf;fpiua njhifAk; ,e;j gpujpthjpaplk;> thjpAk; ngw;Wf; nfhz;Lk;> vt;tpj ghf;fpAkpd;wpAk;> rupahd gpujpgpuNahIdj;jpy; 24.04.2007y; ,e;j http://www.judis.nic.in 2/4 C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1053 of 2011 gpujpthjpf;F> thjpAk; KO rk;kjj;Jld; gjpT mYtyfk; te;J fpiuag;gj;jpuk; vOjp> ifnaOj;J nra;Jk;> rhl;rpfs; ifnaOj;J nra;Jk; gjpe;J nfhLj;Js;shu;.”
(iii)Thereafter, when the parties gone to trial, the defendants 1 to 3 have come forward with the petition, which is the subject matter of the revision, to delete the sentence, wherein the defendants had accepted that they had entered into an agreement dated 20.04.2007, with the plaintiff. Since by the reasons stated in the amendment, the admission of the defendants would be withdrawn, the plaintiff opposed the said amendment. The learned District Munsif, Sivagangai has allowed the application stating that under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the Court has wide powers to order amendment at any stage.
(iv)Further the defendants has stated that it was the plaintiff, who has to prove the case. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff is before this Court.
3.Heard the counsel on either side and perused the paper.
4.A perusal of the original written statement clearly indicates that the defendants had admitted the statement of the plaintiff that there was an agreement dated 24.04.2007, entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants, which according to the plaintiff, is an admission regarding the existence of a prior agreement of sale between the parties. By virtue of the amendment, this admission is sought to be http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1053 of 2011 P.T.ASHA, J.
mrn removed. The amendment would definitely result in prejudice to the plaintiff inasmuch as an original admission is now being retracted by the defendants by virtue of the amended written statement. This is not a case of a defendant taking out a mutually destructive plea by filing an additional written statement but filing a fresh written statement removing the admission.
5.In the above circumstances, the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai is perverse and consequently deserves to be interfered with.
6.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai in I.A.No.1814 of 2010 in O.S.No.115 of 2009 is set aside. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.11.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Mrn
To
1.The District Munsif, Sivagangai.
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1053 of 2011
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/4