Madras High Court
Subbalakshmi vs Pushpam on 17 August, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.337 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P(MD)No.337 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.1625 of 2019 and 5516 of 2020
Subbalakshmi ...Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Pushpam
2.V.Rajagopal
3.Magudeeswari
4.Dharmaraj
5.Gunasekaran
Dhanalakshmi (Died)
6.Gnanasekaran
7.Subburam
8.The Sub Registrar,
Keelarajakularaman,
Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents/Respondents
(Respondents 5, 6 & 7 are exparte in
I.A.No.347 of 2018 in O.S.No.81 of
2012)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P(MD)No.337 of 2019
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order, dated
09.08.2018 passed in I.A.No.347 of 2018 in O.S.No.81 of 2012 on the
file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh
For Respondents : No Appearance
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur in I.A.No.347 of 2018 in O.S.No.81 of 2012, dated 09.08.2018.
2. Despite name of the learned counsel for the respondents printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has filed a suit for the relief of declaration and for setting aside the some of the registered documents. He would further submit that the petitioner only has copy of the patta of the suit property and that the original is available with the second respondent. Hence, in order to mark the secondary evidence, the petitioner wanted to amend the pleading to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 C.R.P(MD)No.337 of 2019 explain about the whereabout of the original patta. Therefore, filed an amendment application so as to amend the plaint incorporating as to the whereabout of the original.
4. On perusal of the typed set of papers, according to the respondents, in whose possession, the document is available, has denied the possession of the same and ultimately, the Court below after considering either side submissions has rejected the application.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The one and the only submission putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in order to mark the copy of the patta and patta passbook in respect of the patta No.177, she wanted an amendment of the plaint to state the possession of the original patta. No doubt, the second respondent disputed the possession of the said document and has pleaded various other defence. It is equally pertinent to mention here that the instant application for the amendment has been filed only after the commencement of the trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 C.R.P(MD)No.337 of 2019
7. When this Court enquiring as to the due diligence of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has already moved an application against the Thasildar to produce the said patta, before the Court. However, the staff from the Office of the Thasildar, who was examined as P.W.2 has deposed before the Court below that such document is not available with them. Only, in that context, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, unless the plaint is amended, they are not in a position to mark the secondary evidence. This Court is not in a position to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. On perusal of the record, the suit is of the year 2012, and when the petitioner herself very well aware that the document is available with the second respondent, has proceeded with trial without any demur, and only after the commencement of the trial, she has filed this amendment application. Whenever, the amendment application has been filed after the commencement of the trial, unless due diligence shown by the petitioner, such application cannot be allowed. Here, the due diligence which alleged by the petitioner is an application filed to summon the Thasildar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 C.R.P(MD)No.337 of 2019
9. This Court is not in a position to concur with the submission of the petitioner about such due diligence. Apart from that, if the amendment is allowed after this length of time, then the same would cause prejudice to the defendants. At the same time, the petitioner is given liberty to mark the document by following procedure under Sections 65 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act.
10. With the above finding, this Court could not find any merits in the civil revision petition. Hence, this civil revision petition stands dismissed with the liberty as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sn
To
1.The Additional District Munsif Court,
Srivilliputhur.
2.The Section Officer
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/6
C.R.P(MD)No.337 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
SN
C.R.P(MD)No.337 of 2019
17.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/6