Madras High Court
S.Chinagurusamy vs M.Maheshwaran on 20 July, 2017
Author: T.Ravindran
Bench: T.Ravindran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1357 of 2017
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.6684 of 2017
S.Chinagurusamy ... Petitioner
-vs-
M.Maheshwaran ... Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.66 of 2017 in O.S.No.167 of
2013 by the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi on 20.02.2017.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Lakshmi Gopinathan
for M/s.Polax Legal Solutions
^For Respondent:
:ORDER
The suit has been laid by the revision petitioner / plaintiff for declaration and possession.
2. It is found that the said suit being contested by the defendant, after issues have been framed, the parties proceed with the trial and it is stated that the suit has been listed for pronouncing Judgment on a particular date.
3. At the stage of the matter, the plaintiff has preferred an application to re-open the case in order to file an amendment application to amend the plaint on the footing that the measurement given in the plaint and the measurement given by the Commissioner as regards the construction put up by the defendant are found to be different and inasmuch as the plaintiff has sought for the relief of the possession, it has become necessary on the part of the plaintiff to amend the plaint with reference to the measurement of the construction put up by the defendant in accordance with the report of the Advocate Commissioner and also to seek for the relief of mandatory injunction. The above request of the plaintiff was seriously contested by the defendant by contending that under the guise of re-opening the case and filing amendment application, the plaintiff wants to introduce a new cause of action and the main intention of the plaintiff is only to drag on the proceedings endlessly and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.
4. The Court below found that the matter having come to the last stage of the suit, the application has been preferred by the plaintiff only with a view to delay the proceedings endlessly. Further, the Court below also found that the proposed amendment is also not inconsonance with the pleadings already set out by the plaintiff. The plaintiff wants to introduce a new cause of action and therefore, it is found that the plaintiff is not entitled to re- open the case, which has been posted for Judgment.
5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in V.Krishnan Nair Vs. K.Raja and others C.R.P.(PD) No.3004 of 2012 ]. The principles of law enunciated in the above said decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the Court below is found to be perfect both factually as well as legally and it does not warrant any interference from this Court. Accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The District Munsif, Sivakasi.
.