A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Mr. Justice B. Pugalendhi while adjudicating on the aspect of whether the concerned property suit was hit by the period of limitation or not, expounded that the petitioner had already sought the relief of declaration and injunction and excepting the fourth defendant, all other defendants remained ex-parte before the trial Court.
Thus, in the present case, it could not be held that the suit was hit by limitation and in order to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, the suit was restored.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, as plaintiff, has filed a suit before the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai, for the relief of declaration and injunction as against the defendants 1 to 35 and also for a declaration to declare the sale deeds of the defendants as null and void in respect of the suit schedule properties.
By an administrative order, the suit was transferred from the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai, to District Munsif Court, Tiruppuvanam, pending at the stage of arguments. While so, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the prayer by including the relief of recovery of possession. The trial Court, by order dated 26.09.2022, dismissed this application, and challenging the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The suit properties are vacant sites and therefore, at the time of filing of the suit, it was filed for declaration, and injunction against the defendants and also to declare the sale deeds as null and void. Pending the suit, the petitioner sought an interim injunction, however, the same was dismissed by the trial Court. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Court, Sivagangai, which was also dismissed.
Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before this Court and the same was dismissed, with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of three months. The petitioner contended that some of the defendants were undertaking illegal construction activities over the disputed suit property even after the Executive Officer of the localized Panchayat had ordered them to refrain from such activities.
The interlocutory application filed by the petitioner for including the relief of mandatory injunction, and recovery of possession against the defendants, who have put up some constructions during the years 2019, 2020 & 2021 was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the constructions were put up by the defendants 19, 20, 23, 30 in the year 2016 itself and as such, the relief now sought for is hit by limitation. The Court has also dismissed on the ground that the High Court has fixed a time limit in C.R.P(MD)No.428 of 2021, dated 25.10.2021, to dispose of the suit within a period of three months.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents contended that the petitioner was aware of the constructions in the year 2016 itself, however, he filed this application at the far end of the trial only to drag on the proceedings. The suit was originally filed in the year 2014 and nobody prevented the petitioner from amending the relief in the suit at the relevant point in time itself. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the relief now sought for is hit by limitation and therefore, he prayed for dismissal.
Observations of the Court:
The court held that it cannot be viewed that the relief now sought is hit by limitation. As per the bench, the petitioner had already sought for the relief of declaration and injunction and excepting the fourth defendant, all other defendants remained ex-parte before the trial Court. The court relied on the ratio expounded in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., & Another [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729], wherein the court held that a prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, among other things.
For the foregoing reasoning, the court decided not to interfere with the impugned order of the trial court. The suit which was earlier dismissed by the trial court was restored.
Decision of the Court:
The civil revision petition was allowed and the Judicial Magistrate Court was ordered to expedite the proceedings.
Case Title: K.A.K. Poovanthan and anr. vs Indrani and others
Coram: Mr. Justice B. Pugalendhi
Case No.: CRP (MD) No. 2107 of 2022 and CMP (MD) No. 9723 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioners: Mr. J. John
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. K. Jagadeesan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
