Madras High Court
Kandasamy vs Thiagarajan on 29 October, 2015
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.10.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.R.P.(PD)No.3642 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 1.Kandasamy 2.K.Palanivel ... Petitioners vs. 1.Thiagarajan 2.Mani 3.T.Sivakumar ...Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order made in I.A.No.404 of 2015 in O.S.No.85 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode dated 13.07.2015. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel For Respondents : Mr.Muniruddin Sheriff O R D E R
The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.85 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode and the respondents herein are the defendants therein. The details of the suit are not relevant for disposal of this revision petition.
2. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.404 of 2015 in O.S.No.85 of 2012 seeking to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Trial Court passed an order dated 13.07.2015 rejecting the said application. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Taking into account the nature of amendment sought for, this Court ordered notice of motion on 14.09.2015 and granted interim stay.
4. After notice, the respondents entered appearance through counsel.
5. Heard both sides.
6. While the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the nature of amendment sought for, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application, the learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously contended that cross of P.W.1 was over and therefore, plaintiffs could not seek for amendment at this stage.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
8. The amendment sought for by the petitioners is as follows:-
"1) gpuhJtpd; jhth brhj;J tpguj;jpy; Kjy; thpapy; cs;s S.No.72-22 f;F mLj;J Now Sub divided as 72-22B vd;W nrh;f;fg;glntz;Lk;/
2) gpuhJtpd; jhth brhj;J tpguj;jpy; Kjy; thpapy; cs;s bounded byf;F mLj;J East: One Chinna Gounder vd;W nrh;f;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/
3) jhth brhj;J tpguj;jpy; ,uz;lhtJ thpapy; cs;s North and East vd;w thh;j;ijia ePf;fptpl;L mjw;F gjpyhf me;j ,lj;jpy; North vd;W nrh;f;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/
4) jhth brhj;J tpguj;jpy; K:d;whtJ thpapy; cs;s Chinna Gounder vd;w thh;j;ijia mLj;J Murugesh, Ganesh and Rajavel vd;W nrh;f;fg;glntz;Lk;/
5) jhth brhj;J tpguj;jpy; ehd;fhtJ thpapy; cs;s East vd;w thh;j;ijia ePf;fptpl;L mjw;F gjpyhf me;j ,lj;jpy; South vd;W nrh;f;fg;glntz;Lk;/ "
9. The aforesaid amendments are only to correct the Survey number, boundaries etc., Those amendments would not seriously alter the very case. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court should have taken a broad view and allowed the application.
10. It is relevant to take note that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides for amendment at any stage of the proceedings, however there is a restriction placed in Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. According to the proviso, due diligence shall be shown, if amendment is sought for after commencement of trial.
11. In the case on hand, though the trial has commenced, taking into account the nature of amendment sought for, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the application seeking amendment. It is well settled that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides for amendment at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, the same cannot be whittled down by the Proviso, particularly, if a case is made out by the parties and more particularly, if the amendment is with regard to correcting survey number etc., D.HARIPARANTHAMAN,J., svki
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the order dated 13.07.2015 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. However, I make it clear that the respondents shall be given time to file additional written statement, if any, in reply to the amendment to the plaint. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2012, within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.10.2015 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes svki To The Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode C.R.P.(PD)No.3642 of 2015