Madras High Court
K. Mylsamy (A) Palanisamy vs Tmt.Kannammal (Died) on 2 July, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.07.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY C.R.P.((PD) No.1059 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 P. Vellingiri Gounder (died) 1. K. Mylsamy (a) Palanisamy 2. Tmt.Subbulakshmi 3. Udaya Kumar 4. Krishnaveni .... Petitioners vs. Tmt.Kannammal (died) 1.Vijayalakshmi 2.Kanthasamy 3.Viswanathan 4.Ponne Gounder .... Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 11.10.2013 passed in I.A.No.1026 of 2013 in O.S.No.1230 of 1995 on the file of III Additional District Munsif at Coimbatore and consequently allow the petitioners to amend the plaint in the said suit as prayed for in I.A.No.1026 of 2013 in O.S.No.1230 of 1995 pending on the file of III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. For Petitioners : Ms.S. Karthikei Balan For respondents : Mr.C.R. Prasanam ORDER
Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.1026 of 2013 in O.S.No.1230 of 1995, pending on the file of III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, the plaintiffs 2 to 5 have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.1230 of 1995 for permanent injunction. The defendants filed their written statement and were contesting the suit.
3. The suit was filed in the year 1995 and the written statement was filed in the year 1996. After a lapse of 18 years, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.1026 of 2013, under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, to amend the plaint.
4. Admittedly, the trial of the suit was completed and the suit was posted for arguments. The plaintiffs have not explained the reasons for the long delay of 18 years in filing the present application to amend the plaint. The application was filed at a belated stage i.,e, after a lapse of 18 years, which cannot be allowed.
5. It is brought to the notice of this court that in respect of the deceased first plaintiff, the first defendant, the defendant 4 and the defendant 5, the trial court dismissed the application in I.A.No.587 of 2014, which was filed by the plaintiffs, to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased parties. The trial court, while dismissing the application, found that since the suit is for bare injunction, there is no necessity to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased.
6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiffs have filed the amended plaint before the trial court, mentioning the plaintiff, the first defendant, the 4th defendant and the 5th defendant, as deceased. The order, passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.587 of 2014, is also taken note of by this Court.
7. The trial Court, after taking into consideration of all these aspects, rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1026 of 2013 in O.S.No.1230 of 1995 and in these circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
8. Since the suit is pending from the year 1995, I direct the III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.1230 of 1995, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
02-07-2015 sr Index:no website:yes To The III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore M. DURAISWAMY,J., sr C.R.P.((PD) No.1059 of 2014 2.7.2015